IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9060 OF 2017 Between:
Sri. Yogish Prabhu, S/o late Krishnaraya Prabhu Aged about 52 years R/at Near G V Pai Memorial Hospital Moodabidre Taluk D.K. District - 574227 (By Sri. Aruna Shyam M, Advocate) And:
The State of Karnataka Through Uppinangady Police Station, D.K.
(By Sri. Chetan Desai, HCGP) ... Petitioner ... Respondent This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.193/2017 of Uppinangadi Police Station, D.K., District for the offence punishable under Sections 295A of IPC and Section 67 of Information Technology Act.
This petition coming on for Orders, this day, the court made the following:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Section 295A of IPC and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000, registered in respondent police station in Crime No.193/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that one Tousif U. T., has lodged complaint alleging that on 26.10.2017, on his social network Facebook has drawn pictures of Tippu Sultan and Chief Minister of Karnataka in an indecent manner with an intention to insult the communal harmony in the society. Accused Nos.1 and 2 in their account have created and managed to spread over in the social media and they are responsible for spreading the above morphed photos, which resulted in communal disharmony. Therefore, he has sought for taking necessary action against the accused persons.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that false allegations are made against the petitioner herein. He has not at all committed any offence. It is also his contention that whether the morphed pictures were shared from a mobile phone or Facebook, is a matter for trial. Hence, he submitted that he is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. All the offences are triable by the Magistrate Court. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 relied upon Hon’ble Apex Court decision reported in 2017 (4) KCCR 2721 (SC) in the Case of Mahendra Singh Dhoni Vs. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar and Another.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader made submission that petitioner being a Bank employee, being a responsible person, has involved in committing such offences which is having serious consequence of disturbing the communal harmony. Hence, he has submitted that petitioner is not entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail and his custodial interrogation is necessary in the matter. Hence, he requested for rejecting the matter.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
7. No doubt true material is produced before the Court regarding the publication of the said material but the petitioner herein has denied the allegations in the petition and contended that he is innocent and is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by the Court. The contention of the prosecution is that the mobile phone is to be seized and interrogation of the present petitioner is necessary. Looking to the nature of the offences, which are triable by the Magistrate Court and are not exclusively punishable with death or life imprisonment. Hence, regarding arraying the apprehension of the prosecution and to enable the petitioner to co-operate with the Investigating Agency, stringent conditions can be imposed on the petitioner while admitting him to bail.
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Section 295A of IPC and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000, registered in respondent police station in Crime No.193/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and has to furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.
ii. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Agency every Sunday in between 10.00 am to 11.00 am, before the concerned Investigating Officer for interrogation, till the investigation is completed.
iii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iv. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute a personal bond and a surety bond.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds