Kerala High Court
Sreekanth K.G vs State Of Kerala on 18 September, 2019
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 27TH BHADRA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.6227 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP 3750/2019 DATED 14-08-2019 OF DISTRICT
COURT& SESSIONS COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA
CRIME NO.1400/2019 OF Pandalam Police Station , Pathanamthitta
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SREEKANTH K.G
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O. T. GANGADHARAN, KALARICKALTHUNIL, MUDIYOORKONAM
POST, CHERICKKAL, PANDALAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRA KRISHNAN
SRI.V.VINAY
SRI.D.FEROZE
SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921)
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031 (CRIME NO.1400/2019 OF
PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT).
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT -
689 501. (CRIME NO.1400/2019 OF PANDALAM POLICE
STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT).
SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.09.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.6227 OF 2019
2
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
=========================
B.A.No.6227 of 2019
==========================
Dated this the 18th day of September, 2019
ORDER
The petitioner has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant Crime No.1400/2019 of Pandalam Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 447, 354C of the IPC and Sections 66E and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 on the basis of the First Information Statement given by the lady defacto complainant on 27.07.2019 at about 8.15 p.m in respect of the alleged incidents which happened on 28.06.2019 at about 1.30 a.m in the early morning hours. It is beyond any dispute that all the offences alleged against the petitioner are bailable offences. The Part I of the schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure dealing with offences under IPC would make it clear that Sections 447 and 354C of the IPC are bailable offences. So also Section 77 (B) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 would also make it clear like day light that the offences as per Sections 66E and 67 of the Information of Technology Act, 2000 are also bailable offences. Since all the offences are bailable offences. The plea of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail is redundant as Bail Appl..No.6227 OF 2019 3 petitioner has not been alleged to commit any non bailable offence. However, Sri.K.K.Dheerendra Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner apprehends that police might unnecessarily arrest the petitioner, on account of the influence of the lady defacto complainant. Further pointed out that, the petitioner's mobile phone has already been examined by the police and wherein it has been found that it does not contain any obscene pictures relating to the lady defacto complainant.
2. Taking note of the above said facts and circumstances of the case, it ordered that for the petitioner to immediately appear before the investigating Officer in relation to the instant crime for interrogation purposes. Petitioner will fully co-operate with the interrogation purposes and may also surrender his mobile phone. Since all the offences alleged against the petitioner are bailable offences the Investigating officer is legally bound to release the petitioner thereafter on bail going by the mandate of Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further would submit that petitioner has an apprehension that police might unnecessarily add an additional offence involving non bailable offence in this case. In case the police gets any objective materials to implicate the petitioner in any Bail Appl..No.6227 OF 2019 4 non bailable offence in relation to this case, then the police shall be duty bound to issue prior notice to the petitioner under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and then thereafter may proceed with the matter in accordance with law. At that stage petitioner will be at liberty to work out his appropriate remedies in the manner known to law including seeking of anticipatory bail either before Sessions Court concerned or before this Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
With these observations and directions with the said liberty the above bail application will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE mpm