Karnataka High Court
Manjunath. C vs State By Cyber Crime Police on 5 September, 2022
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7887 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
MANJUNATH. C,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O CHANKDRAPPA,
R/A 161, AMBEDKAR COLONY,
ADIGARAKALLAHALLI VILLAGE,
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562107. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDEEP K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY CYBER CRIME POLICE,
CEN POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU 147, INFANTRY RD,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU
KARNATAKA 560 001,
REP BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R/STATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR
ARREST IN CR.NO.15/2022 OF BENGALURU CEN CRIME P.S.,
BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.67-B OF
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000 WHICH IS PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.15/2022 of Bengaluru CEN Crime Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 67(B) of Information Technology Act, 2008 (for short 'I.T. Act').
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the suo motu complaint was registered by the Police against the accused alleging that they received a report from the CCPWC, NCCRP and NCMEC established by the Central Government, they came to know that on 29.01.2021 since 5.45 hours to 6.30 hours, the petitioner watched obscene pictures of minors. After receipt of the information through 3 service providers, the intimation was sent to the Police and in turn the Police registered a case and the Police apprehending the arrest of the petitioner. Hence, he is apprehending his arrest in the hands of the Police. Hence, he approached this Court for granting anticipatory bail.
4. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the records, which reveals, of course the case was registered based upon the information referred by the MHA (Ministry of Home Affairs) on the information collected by them through service providers. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his mobile phone is already confiscated with the State or the Police. He is ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view, by imposing certain stringent conditions, if the petitioner is granted bail, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution.
5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. 4 The respondent - Police are directed to release the petitioner-accused on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 67(B) of Information Technology Act, 2008 registered by the respondent - Police Station in Crime No.15/2022, subject to the following conditions:
(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;
(ii) Petitioner shall surrender within 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order;
(iii) Petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences strictly;
(iv) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/ indirectly;
(v) Petitioner shall be deemed custody for the purpose of any recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872;5
(vi) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for the purpose of investigation.
Sd/-
JUDGE GBB