Kerala High Court
Bail Appl./9185/2016 of MANOJ Vs THE STATE OF KERALA on 30 December 2016
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/9TH POUSHA, 1938 Bail Appl..No. 9185 of 2016 () ------------------------------- IN CRMP 8617/2016 of ADDL. D.C. & SESSIONS COURT - II, ALAPPUZHA DATED 26-12-2016 CRIME NO. 856/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/9TH POUSHA, 1938
Bail Appl..No. 9185 of 2016 () ------------------------------- IN CRMP 8617/2016 of ADDL. D.C. & SESSIONS COURT - II, ALAPPUZHADATED 26-12-2016CRIME NO. 856/2016 OF KANAKAKUNNU POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER(S)//ACCUSED:
----------------------
MANOJ AGED 34 YEARS, S/O BALAN MANOJ BHAVANAM, PATHIYOORKALA, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DIST.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.R.NANDAKUMAR SMT.S.L.SYLAJA
RESPONDENT(S)//STATE:--------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA , KOCHI- 31
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ALEX M. THOMBRA
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sm
A.M.BABU, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No.9185 of 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30[th] day of December, 2016
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
Petitioner is the accused in crime no.856/2016 ofKanakakunnu police station in Alappuzha district. The F.I.R. wasregistered under sections 384, 450 and 511 of the IPC read withIPC 376 and under section 66E of the Information Technology Act.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned Public Prosecutor that the offences charged against theaccused have been altered and that at present he is charged withthe offences punishable under section 376 of the IPC and section66E of the Information Technology Act. He is in custody. He seeksbail under section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
2. The prosecution case is that on a promise to marry the defacto complainant the petitioner had sexual intercourse with her, extorted Rs.16,000/- from her and had taken her nude photographs.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned Public Prosecutor.
4. I am shown the case diary by the learned Public Prosecutor. Ihave perused the papers in it. The offence under section 66E of theInformation Technology Act is a bailable offence in view of section77B of the said Act. The petitioner is alleged to have committed rapeon the de facto complainant. But she did not state so in her F.I.statement. What she stated was that her nude photographs weretaken under a threat that he would commit rape on her. I am notgoing into the merits or demerits of the case. However, I should notignore the fact that the petitioner has a presentable or arguable case.He is in custody since 18.10.2016. The potency test was conducted.The de facto complainant was subjected to medical examination. Themobile phone, using which the nude photographs were allegedlytaken, has been recovered. The investigation is nearing to a close.What remains is to get the report from the Cyber Forensic Laboratory,Thiruvananthapuram. In these circumstances, I do not consider thatfurther detention of the petitioner is necessary.
In the result, the bail application is allowed. The petitionershall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.35,000/-(thirty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the likesum each to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate havingjurisdiction to commit the case to the court of session. The petitioner shall co-operate with the remaining part of theinvestigation. He shall make himself available for any furtherinterrogation as and when required by the investing officer for aperiod of two months or till the filing of the final report,whichever is earlier. The petitioner shall not intimidatewitnesses or try to influence them. Nor shall the petitionerdestroy evidence or tamper with it. The learned Magistrate ishereby empowered to cancel the bail in the event of violation ofany of the conditions mentioned above.
Sd/-A.M.BABU, JUDGE
sm/
//True Copy//
P.A. to Judge