IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2010 / 3RD ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3657 of 2010() ----------------------------- CMP.3091/2010 of J.M.F.C.-II,KOTTARAKKARA .................... (CRIME NO.798/2010 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM) PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 ------------------------------------------- DIRAJ, SON OF DHARNEEDHARAN, CHAITHANYA CHIRAVOOR MURI, MANKODE VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.ALAN PAPALI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, (S.I. OF POLICE, CRIME NO. 798/2010 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2010, ALONG WITH BA NO. 3681 OF 2010 AND BA NO. 3677 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A Nos.3657, 3677 AND 3681 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June 2010 ORDER This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 385, 420, 506(1) r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 66E, 67, 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. According to prosecution, de facto complainant and first accused were closely acquainted with and their intimacy developed into an illicit relationship. De facto complainant's husband is working abroad. First accused took a naked video of de facto 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 of second and third accused. They in turn transferred it to fourth accused and, fourth accused to fifth accused thereby, all of them committed the above offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners (A2, A4 and A5) submitted that they have absolutely no role in the offence falling under the Indian Penal Code. There is no allegation that they, in any manner, cheated de facto complainant etc. They are answerable only for the offence under the IT Act. It is also pointed out that two of the offences under the IT Act are bailable B.A Nos.3657, 3677 AND 3681 OF 2010 2 and compoundable. It is also argued that Section 67A of IPC will not be attracted in this case, in the light of language of the Section. 4. Petitioners were arrested on 05/06/2010 and they are in custody for the past 19 days. This petition is not opposed. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that bail can be granted to petitioners. Hence the following order is passed: Petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned, on the following conditions: (i) They shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday and Thursday between 10 A.M and 1 P.M. (ii) They shall not influence or intimidate any witness or tamper with any evidence. (iii) In case they are involved in any similar offence, their bail is liable to be cancelled. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vdv