Kerala High Court
Bail Appl./8966/2016 of BINOJ Vs STATE 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. 8966 of 2016 () ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 6987/2016 of THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,THRISSUR
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. 8966 of 2016 ()
-------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 6987/2016 of THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASSMAGISTRATE COURT-I,THRISSUR DATED 07-12-2016CRIME NO. 3575/2016 OF TOWN EAST POLICE STATION , TRISSUR
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
---------------------
BINOJ, AGED 36, S/O RAMAKRISHNAN, THOTTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUTTANELLUR DESOM, OLLUR VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
--------------------
STATE
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN 682 031, REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR 686 001.
R BY ADV.HRITHWIK,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-12-2016,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.NO.8966 OF 2016
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS
A1-TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 7.12.2016 IN CMP 6987/2016 OF THE JUDICIALFIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, THRISSUR
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS
NIL
TRUE COPY
SKS
P.A TO JUDGE
A.M.BABU, J.
..........................................
...........................................
Dated 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.
ORDER
Petitioner is the accused in crime no.3575/2016 of the Town East police station, Thrissur. He is alleged to havecommitted offences punishable under Sec.376 of the IPC andSec.67 of the Information Technology Act.
2. The prosecution case is as follows: The petitioner and the de facto complainant were working in one office. Hesuppressing his marriage, promised to marry her and hadsexual intercourse with her in the month of January, 2016and also thereafter at their office. He recorded suchincidents on his laptop. After her marriage he transmittedthose clippings through e-mail to her husband.
3. the learned Public Prosecutor.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
4. The offence under Sec.67 of the Information Technology Act is bailable in view of Sec.77 B of the saidAct. There is allegation of rape against the petitioner. It is alleged that he on the promise to marry her had sexualintercourse with her several times. The petitioner is incustody since 5.12.2016. The case diary suggests that theinvestigation is half the way. The petitioner has beeninterrogated. Witnesses have been examined. Recovery ofthe laptop of the petitioner and that of the de factocomplainant has been effected. The laptops have been sentto the Cyber Forensic Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram. Thefinal report is not filed since the report from the CyberForensic Laboratory is not yet received. In thesecircumstances, it is not necessary to keep the petitioner incustody. I am therefore inclined to grant him bail underSec.439 of the Cr.P.C.
In the result, the application is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bondfor Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sumeach to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate who hasjurisdiction to commit the case to the court of session. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation. He shallmake himself available for any further interrogation as andwhen required by the investigating officer for a period oftwo months or till the filing of the final report, whichever isearlier. The petitioner shall not intimidate witnesses or tryto influence them; nor shall he destroy evidence or tamperwith it. The learned Magistrate is hereby empowered tocancel the bail in the event of violation of any of theconditions mentioned above.
sks/30.12.2016
A.M.BABU
Judge