Allowed

Joshy Joseph v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Apr 2016Bail Appl./2796/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the Court granted regular bail to accused persons charged under IPC and POCSO sections for creating a website depicting pornographic pictures of minor children and trafficking girls. Despite the grave nature of allegations, the Court found merit in the submission that continued incarceration was not warranted.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by execution of bond for Rs.50,000 each with two solvent sureties and compliance with specific conditions regarding appearance and non-interference.

Joshy Joseph Vs the State of Kerala — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/6TH VAISAKHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2796 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRMC 543/2016 of ADDL. DISTRICT . & SESSIONS COURT (FOR TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES & SEXUAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN) ,

¶7

THIRUVANANDAPURAM

¶8

CRIME NO. 34/2015 OF CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ,

¶9

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS'S 9 & 10:

¶10

JOSHY JOSEPH

¶11

AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH,

¶12

H.NO. 46,KODANCHERRY, EDAPPALLY,

¶13

ERNAKULAM DISTRICT (FROM PUTHENVEEDU (H),

¶14

NEAR CHEMPUKADAVU CHURCH,

¶15

KODANCHERRY, THAMARASSERY TALUK,

¶16

KOZHIKOD DISTRICT

¶17

JOICE AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. JOSHY JOSEPH

¶18

H.NO. 46,KODANCHERRY, EDAPPALLY,

¶19

ERNAKULAM DISTRICT (FROM PUTHENVEEDU (H),

¶20

NEAR CHEMPUKADAVU CHURCH,

¶21

KODANCHERRY, THAMARASSERY TALUK,

¶22

KOZHIKOD DISTRICT

¶23

BY ADV. SRI.P.A.MUJEEB

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶25

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF EKRALA,ERNAKULAM COCHIN 31

¶26

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C. RASHEED

¶27

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-04-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶29

- - - - B.A.2796 of 2016

¶30

- - - - Dated 26^th April, 2016

¶31

¶32

ORDER

¶33

1.This is an an application for regular bail preferred

¶34

by the accused Nos.9 and 10 in crime No.34 of 2015 of Cyber Cell police station.

¶35

2.The crime referred above has been registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 366 (A), 370(1), 120(b), 212 and r/w Section 34 of the IPC and 13(b) (c) and 14 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 4(1) (2) (a) (b) (c), 5(a) (b) (c) and 5(A) (a)(b) (c) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

¶36

3.The prosecution allegation is that the 1^st accused

¶37

B.A.2796/16

¶38

¶39

had created a website depicting pornographic pictures of minor children with obscene and sexual comments and made wide circulation of the same in the social network. Further, the allegation is that the accused had also engaged in trafficking the minor girls for the purpose of sexual exploitation in and outside Kerala.

¶40

4.I have heard the rival submissions.

¶41

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are in custody since 12.2.2016 onwards and their continued incarceration would serve no purpose.

¶42

6.The learned Public Prosecutor would vehemently

¶43

oppose the application and submit that the petitioners are involved in other crimes as well.

¶44

B.A.2796/16

¶45

¶46

7.The allegations against the petitioners are extremely grave and serious. But I take note of the fact that the petitioners are undergoing incarceration since 12.2.2016. After hearing the rival submissions, it appears that the Investigation has proceeded much, and I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel that the continued incarceration of the petitioners is not warranted in the facts and circumstances.

¶47

8.In the result the petition is allowed, subject to the following conditions.

¶48

1). The petitioners will be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) each, with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of Special Court/ Additional Sessions

¶49

B.A.2796/16

¶50

¶51

Court having Jurisdiction. The sureties shall produce documents to establish their identity and solvency. The lower court need not insist on a solvency certificate, but may peruse other vital documents to ascertain whether the sureties are solvent or not.

¶52

2). The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 AM and 10 AM , for 4 months or till final report is filed, which ever is earlier.

¶53

3). The petitioners shall not enter or reside within the territorial limits of the Thiruvananthapuram Revenue District until the conclusion of the trial of this case except for the purpose of complying with the other conditions in the order. If for any extraordinary reason the petitioners require to enter the limits of the District , previous permission has to be obtained from the jurisdictional Court.

¶54

4). The petitioners shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall they tamper with the evidence.

¶55

5). The petitioners shall not commit any offence while they are on bail.

¶56

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is

¶57

B.A.2796/16

¶58

¶59

empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. Judge

¶62

Mrcs/26.4.2016

¶63

//True Copy//

¶64

P.S.To Judge

Joshy Joseph v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joshy Joseph v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.M.Hassan Vs State of Kerala

M. Sheriff Rehman Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Arun Kumar.D and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others

Nikhil @ Arun Vs State of Kerala

Dr. a.Jehangeer Vs State of Kerala

Yohel Vs State of Kerala