Allowed

K Shivanna v. State by Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2021CRL.P/1143/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition Nos. 1143 of 2021 arose from a case registered for offences under Sections 67 and 67B of IT Act. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail on grounds of false implication as only his phone number was present in a CD. The Court allowed the petition after hearing arguments, noting the offences did not attract death or life sentence and investigation was ongoing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner is entitled to grant of bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.164 of 2020 subject to execution of bond, surrender within 15 days, non-indulgence in similar offences, no tampering with

K Shivanna Vs State by Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1143 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

K. SHIVANNA S/O. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.22, HEGGADAGERE VILLAGE, URAGALLY POST, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA – 562 159.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI V. ANAND, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE BY KARNATAKA RAMANAGARA CEN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, H.C.G.P.)

¶15

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.164 OF 2020 REGISTERED BY RAMANAGAR CEN CRIME POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 67 AND 67B OF IT ACT.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This petition is filed by accused under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.164 of 2020 registered by Ramanagar CEN Crime Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 67 and 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, ‘the IT Act’).

¶21

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶22

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of Gurumurthy, Head Constable attached to Ramanagar CEN Crime Police Station, on 23-12-2020, the Police registered a case against the petitioner alleging that, the complainant received a compact disc (C.D.) sent by the National Crime Records Bureau which consisted of complaints made by Cyber Tipline regarding objectionable

¶23

¶24

material/obscene videos concerning minor children. After registering the case, the Police are making hectic efforts to arrest the petitioner. The petitioner approached the Sessions Court for granting bail, but the same was rejected. Hence, this petition.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated. Merely mentioning phone number in the C.D. that itself do not constitute any offence under the IT Act. The petitioner is ready to abide by any of the conditions that may be imposed by the Court. The alleged offences are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, he prayed for allowing the petition.

¶26

Per contra , the learned High Court Government Pleader has objected the bail petition and contended that, the act committed by the petitioner has to be investigated. Since the investigation is still under progress, his

¶27

¶28

presence is required for custodial interrogation. Hence, he prayed for dismissing the petition.

¶29

Upon considering the arguments and perusal of the record, it goes to show that on receipt of the C.D by the National Crime Records Bureau, the case has been registered against the petitioner since his phone number was available in the C.D. The offences alleged are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. At this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed the offences as alleged in the First Information Report. The petitioner is said to be permanent employee of Sankalp Venture, Ramanagar. In a similar case, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the accused in Criminal Petition No.3510 of 2020 on 10-8-2020. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following

¶30

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

Criminal petition is allowed .

¶33

The respondent-Ramanagar CEN Crime Police

¶34

Station is directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.164 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 67 and 67B of the IT Act, subject to the following conditions:

¶35

i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶36

ii. Petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order;

¶37

iii. Petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offences;

¶38

iv. Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;

¶39

¶40

v. Petitioner shall be deemed to be in custody for the purpose of any recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; and

¶41

vi. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for, for the purpose of investigation.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

kvk

K Shivanna v. State by Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Shivanna v. State by Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashraf Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Inderkumar. M Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Arif Vs State by D. J. Halli

Lakshmikanth Vs State of Karnataka

Shin Thangajal Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr.Chethan D.M. Vs Basavangudi Womens Police Station