Allowed

Jerin Ponnachan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Sept 2023Bail Appl./7155/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed bail to two petitioners accused under the Information Technology Act and Kerala Police Act involving morphed pictures, directing their release subject to four specific conditions including bond execution and reporting.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail with two solvent sureties; bond of Rs.50,000 each; mandatory reporting; no contact with complainant; prohibition on influencing witnesses or committing other crimes.

Jerin Ponnachan Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 14TH BHADRA, 1945

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 7155 OF 2023

¶6

CRIME NO.262/2023 OF Thankamani Police Station, Idukki

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 JERIN PONNACHAN, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O LUKA, KARUKACHERIL HOUSE,KATTAPPANA, KATTAPPANA.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685508

¶9

2 JEBIN PONNACHAN, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O LUKA, KARUKACHERIL HOUSE,KATTAPPANA, KATTAPPANA.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT,, PIN - 685508

¶10

BY ADV JESTIN MATHEW

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

¶13

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THANKAMONY POLICE STATION, THANKAMONY PO, IDUKKI DISTRICT,, PIN - 685515

¶14

SRI. G. SUDHEER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A. No.7155/2023

-2-

O R D E R

The petitioners (who are brothers) are accused in Crime No.262/2023 Thankamani Police Station, Idukki District alleging commission of offences under Section 67A of the Information Technology Act and Section 120 (O) of the Kerala Police Act.

¶20

The allegation against the petitioners is that using the SIM card of a native of Assam (who was working with the father of the petitioners), the petitioners morphed the picture of the de facto complainant and posted such pictures in a whatsaap group in which a relative of the de facto complainant was also a member. It is also alleged that the petitioners also posted messages in the group informing that further pictures / videos will follow.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that the alleged offence was not committed either using the SIM card of any of the petitioners or any mobile phone belonging to the petitioners. It is submitted that there is absolutely no evidence to connect the petitioners to crime. It is submitted that the petitioners are willing to co-operate with the investigation and considering the nature of the offences, the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail.

¶22

The learned Public Prosecutor refers to the circumstances of the case and submits that in order to have an effective instigation the mobile phones and other electronic equipment that may have been used by the petitioners may have to be seized and unless the petitioners co-operate with the investigation, it may be difficult for the police to complete the investigation.

¶23

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that that considering the nature of the allegations raised against the petitioners and taking into consideration of the law down by

¶24

B.A. No.7155/2023

¶25

-3-

¶26

the Supreme in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar; 2014 (3) KLT 143 (SC) the petitioners can be directed to be released on anticipatory bail subject to conditions. As held by the Supreme Court in Suseela Agarwal and others v. State; (2020) 5 SCC 1 the petitioners shall be deemed to be in custody for the purposes of effecting any recovery etc.

¶27

In the result, this bail application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioners shall be released on bail, in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.262/2023 Thankamani Police Station, Idukki District subject to the following conditions:-

¶28

(i) Petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer;

¶29

(ii) Petitioners shall report before the Investigating officer in Crime No.262/2023 Thankamani Police Station, Idukki District as and when called upon to do so;

¶30

(iii) Petitioners shall not attempt to contact the de facto complainant or interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.262/2023 Thankamani Police Station, Idukki District;

¶31

(iv) Petitioners shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

¶32

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer in Crime No.262/2023 Thankamani Police Station, Idukki District may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.

¶33

Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE

AMG

B.A. No.7155/2023

-4-

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 7155/2023

¶38

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶39

Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 01.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THANKAMONY POLICE STATION

Jerin Ponnachan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jerin Ponnachan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Mubarak Vs the Inspectoe of Police

Sanoop Vs State of Kerala Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Nijil @ Kunjappu, Vs State of Kerala

Vipin K.V. Vs State of Kerala

Anish. a Vs State of Kerala

Usha Kumari Vs State of Kerala