Kerala High Court
Abhiram M. Ajay vs State Of Kerala on 16 April, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 27TH CHAITHRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2869 OF 2024
CRIME NO.3/2021 OF CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD,
Kasargod
PETITIONER/S:
ABHIRAM M. AJAY,
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O. AJAYAKUMAR, ABANTHIKA, CHANDHAVILA,
KATTAIKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695584
BY ADVS.
S.RAJEEV
V.VINAY
M.S.ANEER
PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH
ANILKUMAR C.R.
K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
NOURIN S. FATHIMA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO. 3/2021 OF
CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, KASARGOD), PIN - 671314
SMT.C.SEENA, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. No.2869 of 2024 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
B.A. No. 2869 of 2024
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)
2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No. 3/2021 registered by Cyber Crime Police Station, Kasaragod. The above case is registered against the accused alleging offences punishable under Secs 354A (1)(iv), 465, 469, 509 IPC and Secs. 67 & 67A of Information Technology Act.
3. The petitioner is an engineering student who is doing his course at Thiruvananthapuram. The prosecution case is that the petitioner misused certain photographs in the social media. B.A. No.2869 of 2024 3
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a student studying in an Engineering College at Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner submitted that he is not involved in this case. He also submitted that he is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail. The public prosecutor opposed the bail application.
6. Admittedly, the crime is registered in the year 2021. The petitioner is a student. Even though the case was registered in the year 2021, the petitioner was not arrested till now. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary. The petitioner can be directed to surrender before the Investigating officer and he can be directed to appear continuously for a period of one week and thereafter, as and when required.
7. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that, the bail B.A. No.2869 of 2024 4 is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE 870), after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that, the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.
Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:
1. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned; B.A. No.2869 of 2024 5
3. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for one week continuously at 10 am for interrogation and thereafter, as and when required. The petitioner shall co-
operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
4. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court;
5 Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected;
6. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.
7. Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter B.A. No.2869 of 2024 6 and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663] sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS