IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6937 of 2008()
1. MANOJ,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :20/11/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
-----------------------------------------
B.A.No. 6937 of 2008
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th November, 2008
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 406, 408, 417,
419, 420, 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. According to
prosecution, de facto complainant was running an orphanage.
Petitioner was helping her in running the same. She had also a
Website in the name of the orphanage. Later, it ceased to be in
existence. Petitioner created a new Website in the name of the
orphanage and he started personating himself and collected huge
amounts from various persons. He opened a bank account in his
name and also in the name of the Website, and thereby he
committed various offences. On a private complaint filed by de facto
complainant, which was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, a
crime was registered and after investigation, the charge sheet was
laid against petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is
absolutely innocent of the allegations made. Except bare
allegations, there are no materials to connect the accused with the
crime. Details of the bank account and the amount collected by him,
if any, are not ascertained in investigation. The fact that petitioner
BA.6937/08 2
created a Website is also not revealed in investigation. On the
above grounds it is stated that he may be granted anticipatory bail.
It is also submitted that a Writ Petition was filed by de facto
complainant for a direction for appropriate investigation, but it was
dismissed.
4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that the allegations made against petitioner are serious
in nature. It is true that the details of the bank account were not
collected during investigation before the charge sheet was filed.
But, subsequently, de facto complainant filed a petition under
Section 173(8) Cr.P.C for further investigation. He also wanted the
crime to be investigated by the Hi-tech Cell, Thiruvananthapuram,
since cyber crime is involved. The petition is posted to 29.12.2008.
In a case of this nature, wherein cyber a crime is involved, a proper
and effective investigation can be conducted only by the Hi-tech
Cell. Therefore, if petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, it will
adversely affect the investigation. Petitioner will have to be
interrogated in custody by the police and that opportunity will be
lost if he is granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted.
5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that this is a case
where a petition under Section 173(8) is pending. When a petition
BA.6937/08 3
for further investigation is pending, it may not be proper on my part
to make any specific observations on the merit of the case, since it
may prejudice the decision to be taken in a petition filed under
Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Considering the serious nature of
allegations made, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail.
Petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
vgs.