Dismissed

Sajan T Koshy v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Jul 2014Bail Appl./4137/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail applicant sought release apprehending arrest under the Information Technology Act for creating fake photographs of the Chief Minister. The High Court of Kerala declined to grant bail, noting the serious nature of the allegations and refusing to decide the specific charges at this stage, instead directing the petitioner to raise contentions before the magistrate during the trial.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sajan T Koshy Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2014/11TH ASHADHA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4137 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRIME NO.15 OF 2014 OF PATTAM POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶8

SAJAN T KOSHY AGED 37 YEARS S/O THOMAS KOSHY, THATTARUZATHIL HOUSE KALLISSERRY MURI, THIRUVANDOOR VILLAGE CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA

¶12

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM--682031.

¶14

R BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: ASIF ALI

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 0207-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

¶17

=========================

¶18

B.A.No.4137 of 2014

¶19

============================ Dated this the 02^nd day of July, 2014

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Petitioner apprehends arrest in Crime No.15 of 2014 of the Pattam Police Station for the offences punishable under Secs.66(A) (b) and 67 of the Information Technology Act, apprehends arrest and has filed this application.

¶22

Learned State Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that the petitioner created fake photographs of the Chief Minister with a women and posted the same in the petitioner's face book page using mobile phone to cause annoyance to the de facto complainant. Learned State Public Prosecutor has submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required and that offences committed are of serious nature.

¶23

Learned counsel submits that the allegations are not true and that at any rate, the offence if any, committed would only come under Sec.77B of the IT Act which is a bailable offence. Learned counsel has invited my attention to the order dated 08.02.2012 in B.A.No.752 of 2014.

¶24

B.A.No.4137 of 2014

¶25

¶26

It is not necessary to decide at this stage whether the offences involved are under Secs.66(A)(b) and 67 or under Sec.77B of the said Act. That is a contention which the petitioner can raise when he appears or is brought before the jurisdictional magistrate.

¶27

In the nature of the allegations made, I am not inclined to grant relief to the petitioner.

¶28

The application is dismissed. It is directed that in case the petitioner appears or brought before the learned magistrate, it is open to the petitioner to raise all his contentions including the nature of offence allegedly committed.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶31

Sbna

¶32

True Copy

¶33

P A to Judge

Sajan T Koshy v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sajan T Koshy v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saseendra Babu Vs State of Kerala

Ashokan Vs State of Kerala

Jayesh K.P Vs State of Kerala

Madhusoodanan Vs the State of Kerala

Paul Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Subair Vs State of Kerala