Kerala High Court

Vineeth Ramiz vs State Of Kerala on 26 August, 2022

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                    PRESENT
                     THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
         FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 4TH BHADRA, 1944
                          BAIL APPL. NO. 5616 OF 2022
   CRIME NO.0517/2020 OF Ernakulam North Police Station, Ernakulam
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT Bail Appl. 5401/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF
                                    KERALA
PETITIONER:

              VINEETH RAMIZ BABU (DT. OF BIRTH 16-4-1984)
              S/O ALEES BABU @ V.K.BABU, HOLDER OF INDIAN PASSPORT
              NO.23348827 ISSUED ON 3-10-2016, SELF EMPLOYED,
              RESIDING AT 13-D, DUKES, SKYLINE IMPERIAL GARDENS,
              KALOOR STADIUM LINK ROAD,
              ERNAKULAM-.KOCHI., PIN - 680031

              BY ADVS.
              T.ASAFALI
              T.Y.LALIZA


RESPONDENTS:

     1        STATE OF KERALA
              REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
              HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI - 682031

     2        STATION HOUSE OFFICER
              ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION,
              ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

              SRI.V.K.SUNIL - PP


     THIS     BAIL    APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
26.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 5616 OF 2022
                                 2

                             ORDER

The present petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure for protection of life and liberty. Petitioner

apprehending the threat of arrest at an earlier point of time had

approached this Court vide Bail Application No.3998/2015. It

was alleged that he is an MBA Degree holder. On 27.08.2015,

the marriage with the petitioner and one Ms.Tania Banazir Ali,

the daughter of Asgar Ali Pasha, a senior IAS Officer was

performed. No children were born out of the marriage. Owing to

certain misunderstanding both husband and wife started living

separately and decided to part with the ways by mutual divorce.

But, during this period on 27.06.2020, Inspector of Police, Town

North Police Station raided the house of the petitioner on the

information that the petitioner was indulging into pornography.

This Court had issued the notice and the State Counsel informed

that FIR has been registered under Section 102. This Court vide

order dated 07.07.2020 disposed of the Anticipatory Bail

Application by imposing following conditions: BAIL APPL. NO. 5616 OF 2022

(1) The petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses

or in any way tamper with the investigation.

(2) The petitioner shall provide his mobile number and email id

to the investigating officer.

(3) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer as

and when required by the investigating officer. However, the

investigating officer shall call him only by providing a notice

under Section 160 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

(4) The petitioner shall not leave the country without the

permission of the concerned court.

2. However, the offence under Section 15 of POCSO Act

and 67B of the IT Act were inserted subsequently and petitioner

received a notice to appear before the police. The learned

counsel for the State submitted that petitioner is not an accused

in criminal case No.517/2020 and he was neither called for

investigation or for custodial interrogation. In this view of the

matter, this Court disposed of the bail application with direction

to the respondent, in case the forensic report is found in favour BAIL APPL. NO. 5616 OF 2022

of the petitioner and no further direction was required and if

otherwise, the Investigation Officer will give seven days'

advance notice to the petitioner for investigation.

3. Sri.Asaf Ali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioner submitted that though the report did not come

but the petitioner had an apprehension of arrest as he was

issued a notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. on 11.07.2022

Annexure-A6. It is in that background, the petitioner had to

approach this Court again through instant Bail Application

No.5616/2022.

4. This Court while issuing notice had protected the life

and liberty of the petitioner vide order dated 20.07.2022. Since

the report was awaited the adjournment was being sought.

Today, report dated 08.08.2022 has been placed on record and

as per the report, it has been found that the in the laptop seized

from the possession of the petitioner the hard disk installed

therein was partitioned and e-drive contained the child

pornography. The case of the prosecution that report has been BAIL APPL. NO. 5616 OF 2022

filed to the concerned Magistrate and it is awaiting commission

to the concerned POCSO Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits as per the

record of the police and submissions of the state counsel, no

further investigation is required. Petitioner is willing to join the

investigation, if so directed by the Magistrate or the police

require for further investigation in some exceptional cases and

shall co-operate with the police as and when called for. In the

meantime, his life and liberty may be protected as this may

deter him to obtain the job which he intended to do.

6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposed

the aforementioned prayer on the ground that Section 15 of the

POCSO Act does not only relate transmission of the pornography

but storage as well. In the e-drive of the laptop received from

possession of the petitioner, there was. Prima facie, it is a case

of the commission of an offence and no concession of

Anticipatory Bail should be granted as there is likelihood of the

petitioner may not indulge into further commission of the crime. BAIL APPL. NO. 5616 OF 2022

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

appraised the paper book. It would be apt to produce the orders

dated 07.07.2020, 29.03.2022 and 20.07.2022:

07.07.2020

The petitioner, an MBA Degree holder and expected to join for duty in some place in India, has approached this court for protection of his life and liberty by granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the premise that, on 27.08.2015, marriage with the petitioner and one Ms.Tania Banazir Ali, the daughter of Asgar Ali Pasha, a senior IAS officer in Kerala cadre, was performed. However, there are no children out of the marriage. There was certain misunderstanding between the husband and wife and since one year, wife is living separately and both family members have decided to part with the ways by mutual divorce. However during the course, on 27.06.2020, the Inspector of Police, Town North Police Station raided the house of the petitioner on an information that petitioner is indulging in child pornography.

2. Mr. Asaf Ali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, the aforementioned search and seizure was contemplated to have been conducted under the provisions of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but the manner and mode of search was initiated at the instance of father of his wife and the forensic analysis of laptop is still awaited. Though at the time of playing of laptop, no such material was found except some Brazilian BAIL APPL. NO. 5616 OF 2022

movie where some sexual act was performed, which is not an offence under any provisions of the POCSO Act. Petitioner belongs to a respectful family and has an apprehension of arrest at the hands of the police and in case of arrest, his career would be tarnished.

3. On the other hand, Mr.P.R.Renjith, learned State Counsel opposes granting bail on the premise that the allegation regarding the conduct of the police officers in respect of the search has been blown out of proportion, but do not deny that the analysis report is still awaited and as such, no such FIR in this respect except the crime case under Section 102 Cr.PC has been alleged.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I am of the view that, the facts are not in dispute, but it is yet to be ascertained whether the petitioner indulged into any crime or not and any of the provisions of the Act involving commission of cognizable or non-cognizable offence. I allow the petition by granting the interim protection to the petitioner that in case any FIR is registered against the petitioner on any analysis report, petitioner would be give seven days advance notice to make an arrangement for protection of life and liberty, subject to the following conditions.

(1) The petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation.

(2) The petitioner shall provide his mobile number and email id to the investigating officer.

(3) The petitioner shall report before the BAIL APPL. NO. 5616 OF 2022

investigating officer as and when required by the investigating officer. However, the investigating officer shall call him only by providing a notice under Section 160 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

(4) The petitioner shall not leave the country without the permission of the concerned court.

The bail application stands allowed in the aforementioned terms.

29.03.2022

In the order dated 25.09.2020, this Court had protected the life and liberty of the petitioner. Mr.Jimmy George, learned Government Pleader submits that in the criminal case No.517/2020, petitioner is not an accused and he is neither called for investigation or for custodial interrogation.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that the laptop of the petitioner was seized, sent to the forensic lab and report is awaited and apprehends that in case of any adverse report petitioner's life and liberty may not be affected.

In this view of the matter, the present anticipatory bail application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents that in case the forensic report is in favour of the petitioner, no further direction would be required and if otherwise, the Investigating Officer will give seven days' advance notice to the petitioner for investigation so that the petitioner is able to make alternative arrangements.

BAIL APPL. NO. 5616 OF 2022

20.07.2022

Learned PP is directed to get instructions and produce the copy of the forensic report in the laptop of the petitioner.

Post on 1/8/2022.

In the meantime, if the petitioner is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail, on him furnishing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

8. On perusal of the above, it is seen that during all

these period the arrest of the petitioner had remain stayed and

had joined the investigation as and when called by the

Investigating Officer. Since the report has been submitted to the

Magistrate which would be committed to the Court, I am of the

view no useful purpose would be served in directing the police

to seek custodial interrogation of the petitioner as of now, no

such interrogation or investigation is required.

9. Accordingly, I allow the Anticipatory Bail Application

subject to the following conditions:

BAIL APPL. NO. 5616 OF 2022

1. Petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the