IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 4092 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.798/10 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DIST. .................... (S): PETITIONER ------------------------------ NOUSHAD,S/O.SHAMSUDHEEN, ROSHAN MANZIL, (SUBAIDA MANZIL)PARALASA MURI,PARASALA VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRIYADARSAN THAMPI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY.ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.4092 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 9th July, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 385, 420 and 506(i) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66E, 67A and 67 of the Information Technology Act. According to prosecution, defacto complainant and first accused were closely acquainted with each other and their intimacy developed into an illicit relationship. The defacto complainant's husband is working abroad. First accused took a naked video of defacto complainant and thereafter, showing the video, he started compelling her for sex. Likewise, he also demanded money and she was forced to pay Rs.1,00,000/-. Thereafter, the nude video was transferred by first accused to the mobile phone of second and third accused. They, in turn transferred it to fourth accused and fourth accused to fifth accused and thereby, all of them committed the above offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner (A1) submitted that petitioner was arrested on 4.6.2010 and he is in custody for the past 35 days. It is pointed out that even as per the allegations made by defacto complainant, petitioner and defacto complainant BA NO. 4092/10 2 were having illicit relationship and no compulsion is involved. The co-accused were granted bail by this Court and hence, he may also be granted bail, it is submitted. According to the learned counsel, this is second application for bail, filed by petitioner. The first application was dismissed as withdrawn. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and pointed out that the case against accused nos.2, 4 and 5 (in favour of whom, bail was granted), stands on a different footing. The investigation is still in progress and offences under the Information Technology Act are involved. 5. On hearing both sides and on considering the serious nature of the allegations made and the stage of investigation, I am not inclined to grant bail to petitioner at this stage. The bail granted to the co-accused cannot be made a ground to grant bail to petitioner, since they are not similarly placed. Hence, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs