IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3326 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.444/2010 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.) PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------ ABHIJITH R.PRASAD, AGED 17 YEARS, (JUVENILE) S/O.RAJENDRA PRASAD, AKHILA BHAVAN, VALANCHERI, KILIMANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, REP.BY HIS FATHER SRI.RAJENDRAPRASAD, AKHILA BHAVAN,VALANCHERI, KILIMANOOR P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIMANOOR POLICE CIRCLE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------- Bail Application No. 3326 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The offence alleged is under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. According to prosecution, petitioner morphed certain photographs of some women to make them appear to be nude using his computer. When the de facto complainant went to the petitioner's house, he happened to see the morphed photographs in the computer, while the petitioner was operating his computer. Hence, he made a complaint and case was registered under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was aged only 16 years at the time of alleged offence. He is a student. He had learned a software “Photo shop” and he along with his friends edited the photos using the software “photo shop”. But none of those photographs were BA. No.3326/2010 2 published or transmitted or caused to be published in internet. Section 67 of the IT Act reveals that publication is an offence. The petitioner, later on realising that he should not have done the act, deleted the edited photographs. The hard disk of the computer was given to a neighbour, when he demanded the same. 4. The de facto complainant is an enemy of petitioner's father on political issues. The de facto complainant never visits petitioner's house because of the enmity with the petitioner's father and it is not correct to say that de facto complainant had seen any photographs in the computer of the petitioner. The case is foisted against the petitioner only to wreck vengeance against the petitioner's father, it is submitted. 5. It is also submitted that as per the directions of this Court, petitioner had appeared before this Court and the matter was discussed in the presence of the petitioner's counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor. The petitioner was given an opportunity to explain all relevant aspects to the Investigating BA. No.3326/2010 3 Officer. He had accordingly appeared before the Investigating Officer and he was questioned. Nothing is to be recovered. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer and he was interrogated. His statement was also recorded. Recovery of the relevant materials are already effected. It is also conceded that de facto complainant and the petitioner's father are on inimical terms with each other. It is also pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor that the only offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and on first conviction, the punishment is only upto 3 years and also fine. It is further pointed out that as per Section 77B of the said Act, the offence punishable upto 3 years is only bailable. 7. On hearing both sides, I find that the petitioner has a strong and arguable case in respect of involvement of offence under Section 67 of Information Technology Act. Considering the various facts and circumstances, including the fact that recovery is already effected, I find that anticipatory bail BA. No.3326/2010 4 can be granted to the petitioner on conditions. Hence, the following order is passed: (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within 7 days from today. (2) On such surrender, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the following conditions:- (i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. (ii) In case, the petitioner is involved in other similar act as alleged, bail is liable to be cancelled. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA,JUDGE. nj.