Allowed

Prasanth C.K. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Sept 2018Bail Appl./5144/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by a petitioner accused of disseminating misinformation via social media. The court held that custodial interrogation was unnecessary and granted bail on a bond with solvent sureties subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail with a bond of Rs. 40,000 and two sureties each for the like sum, subject to specific conditions.

Prasanth C.K. Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 3RD ASWINA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5144 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 661/2018 OF Mankara Police Station , Palakkad

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

PRASANTH C.K. S/O.KOCHUNNI,AGED 40, RESIDING AT CHATHANKANDOM HOUSE,MANJAKARA,MANAKARA.P.O, PIN-678613,PALAKKAD.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.M.KURIAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE S.I.OF POLICE, POLICE STATION,MANKARA, PALAKKAD,PIN-678613.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI AJITH MURALI PP

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Bail Appl..No. 5144 of 2018

¶16

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This application is filed filed under § 438 Cr.P.C.

¶19

On 12.07.2018, a complaint was filed by the President

¶20

of the Mankara Panchayath before the Superintendent of Police Palakkad, wherein she alleged that certain persons headed by one Sajeev has been spreading misinformation against her within the limits of the Panchayath. It is further alleged that the aforesaid Sajeev had posted some materials in his Facebook page denigrating the de facto complainant. On the basis of the said complaint, the aforesaid crime was registered on 12.07.2018, inter alia under §§119(a), 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 and §67(A) of the Information Technology Act 2000.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that even if the allegations are admitted as such the offence under §67(A) of the Information Technology Act is not made out as against the applicant herein. The learned counsel has also referred to Annex.A2 complaint filed by the de facto complainant before the police and it is submitted that there is no

¶22

Bail Appl..No. 5144 of 2018

¶23

¶24

reference to the applicant herein in the complaint.

¶25

The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that subsequently a detailed statement was furnished by the de facto complainant before the police wherein she has referred to the involvement of the applicant herein.

¶26

I have considered the submissions advanced. It

¶27

appears that the main grievance is that certain misinformation was spread across the Panchayath showing the de facto complainant in very poor light. Allegation in the complaint is mainly against one Sajeev. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the role assigned to the applicant herein, I am of the view that by imposing appropriate conditions he can be granted an order of pre-arrest bail. His custodial interrogation does not appear to be necessary in the instant case.

¶28

In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶29

Bail Appl..No. 5144 of 2018

¶30

¶31

1).The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for one month or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶32

2). The applicant shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.

¶33

3). The applicant shall not commit any offence while he is on bail.

¶34

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶35

SD/-

¶36

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

¶37

Dxy

¶38

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

Prasanth C.K. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasanth C.K. v. 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

Prince Michael Vs State of Kerala

Prince Michael Vs State of Kerala

Jayaraj Vs the State of Kerala

Manoj Vs State of Kerala

Divya Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Menon Vs State of Kerala