IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3407 of 2008() ----------------------------- C.R.NO.349/2008 OF THE VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- M.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O. ANANDAN, AGED 54 YEARS, 'ANAND' MANNA, VALAPATTANAM P.O., KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA RESPONDENT: STATE: ------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 3407 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008 O R D E R According to the prosecution, on 25-4-2008 at 12.30 hours the Sub Inspector, on getting information, went to the theatre run by the petitioner and found that a film was exhibited in the theatre by name “After Marriage”, which contains some obscene scenes, which can be exhibited only to adults. The film has therefore to have a certification that the film is for “adults only”. But, the film did not contain such certification. Therefore, the operator was arrested. The petitioner who is the owner of the theatre is also made as an accused and hence he has filed this application for anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and submitted that though the offence mentioned in the F.I.R. is under section 7(1)(b) the petitioner has been exhibiting film without obtaining censor certificate. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the offence is attracted only if the film is altered or tampered with, after it is certified. But in this case admittedly there is no certificate and hence no offence is made out under the above provision. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to BA 3407/08 -2- get anticipatory bail, it is argued. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner. If anticipatory bail is not granted ,the petitioner will be put to irreparable injury which is not justified on facts of this case 3. On hearing both sides I am satisfied that considering the nature of the allegations made, Hence, the application is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.