Disputed an application for anticipatory bail in a cyber crime case. Court denied anticipatory bail, directed surrender for interrogation, and specified procedure for subsequent regular bail application.
Petitioner directed to surrender for interrogation on specified dates; thereafter permitted to file application for regular bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2011 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1933
Bail Appl..No. 1047 of 2011()
------------------------CRIME NO. 4 OF 2011 OF CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED
MR. INDRAMOHAN SAHADEVAN, M/A 42 YEARS, S/O.MUTHIRULA SAHADEVAN, 214 6TH CROSS EXTENSION HERITAGE JAYENDRA NAGAR, SEMBAKKAM,
TAMBARAM, CHENNAI.
BY ADV. SRI.M.A.JOSEPH MANAVALAN
RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT
STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. MANU
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
Bail Application No. 1047 of 2011
Dated: 04-04-2011
ORDER
Petitioner who is the 4th accused in Crime No. 4 of 2011 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram for offences punishable under Sections 109, 120 B, 408 read with Sec. 34 and Sec. 43 of I.P.C. and Secs. 65 and 66 of Information Technology Act, Sec. 63 of Copyright Act, seeks anticipatory bail.
Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2010 (4) KLT
930) ,, I am of the view that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature, since the investigating officer has not had the advantage of interrogating the petitioner. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have his application for bail considered by the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 16-4-2011 or on 18-4-2011. for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. In case the investigating officer is of the view that having regard to the facts of the case arrest of the petitioner is imperative he shall record his reasons for the arrest in
Bail Application No. 1047 of 2011 -:2:-
the case-diary as insisted in paragraph 129 of Siddharam's case (supra). The petitioner shall thereafter be produced before the Magistrate or the Court concerned and permitted to file an application for regular bail. In case the interrogation of the petitioner is without arresting him, the petitioner shall thereafter appear before the Magistrate or the Court concerned on the same day or the next day and apply for regular bail. The Magistrate or the Court on being satisfied that the petitioner has been interrogated by the police shall, after hearing the prosecution as well, consider and dispose of his application for regular bail preferably on the same date on which it is filed.
This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 4th day of March, 2011.
V.RAMKUMAR,
JUDGE
ani/
Bail Application No. 1047 of 2011 -:3:-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving cyber offences under the IT Act and IPC.
Whether the petitioner requires to be interrogated by the investigating officer before consideration of bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of MaharashtraExplained¶23
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2010 (4) KLT 930)
3 provisions across 3 enactments
PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED
STATE OF KERALA
V. RAMKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
