High CourtsSingle Bench

Muhammed Arif K.M vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 13 July 2022 · Citation: (2022) 07 KL CK 0120

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 354D · Information Technology Act, 2000 — Section 66D, 67B(a) · Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 11(iv), 11(v), 12
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 4965 Of 2022
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 420 words

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

1.

This is an application seeking regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2.

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.284/2022 of Melatoor Police Station alleging offences under Sections 66-D and 67B(a) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 12 r/w Section 11(ii)(iv)(v) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3.

According to the prosecution, petitioner had obtained a nude photograph of the victim, whom he met through 'Instagram' and thereafter induced her to send her nude photographs and thereafter, under the threat of publishing the said photographs in the social media, induced the victim to send her sister's nude photographs also into a fake Instagram account and thereby committed the offences alleged against him.

4.

Sri.T.N.Arunkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is totally innocent and having regard to the young age of the petitioner, his continued detention is not required.

5.

Sri.M.K.Pushpalatha, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail and submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail, it would be a threat to the victim as well as to others.

6.

A perusal of the case diary reveals that prima facie there are materials on record to connect the petitioner with the crime. However, since petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 20.06.2022, I am of the view that the continued detention of the petitioner is not required in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

7.

In the result, this application is allowed on the following conditions:-

(i) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

(ii) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

(iii) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence or contact the victim or their family members.

(iv) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while he is on bail.

(v) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction.

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, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.