KERALA HIGH COURT
C.S. Sudha, J.
Fakrudeen K.V. alias Fakrudeen Panthavoor – Appellant
versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Crl.A 842 of 2024
Decided on 25.3.2025
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 18 and 18-A – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 482] – Pre-arrest bail – Dismissal of petition seeking pre-arrest bail – Appellant/accused as per FIR is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 354-A(i)(iii), 354A(1)(iv), 509 IPC; Section 66-E, 67-A of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 3(1)(r), (s), (w), (ii) and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act – In the era of social media, individuals often operate under misconception that right to freedom of speech and expression allows them to produce any form of content, make unfounded criticisms, issue abusive remarks, or engage in derogatory conduct towards others, all while evading accountability – This raises serious concerns, particularly in light of growing prevalence of cyberbullying, a phenomenon that remains inadequately addressed by current legal frameworks – Content of video is insult to victim – Video has been viewed by more than one lakh persons – Offence under Section 3(1)(r) of Act is certainly made out from materials on record – Trial court was right in finding that bar under Sections 18 and 18-A of Act is attracted – No grounds for interference into impugned order. (Paras 8, 9 and 10)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes & the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act) has been filed by the petitioner/accused in crime no.251/2024, Infopark police station, Ernakulam, aggrieved by the dismissal of his petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., namely, Crl.M.C. No. 1407/2024, on the file of the Court of Session, Ernakulam, seeking pre-arrest bail.
2. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the materials on record do not make out any offence(s) under the Act. The appellant/accused has never referred to or mentioned the caste name of the 2nd respondent/informant in the video uploaded by him. Relying on the dictum in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710, it was submitted that merely because the 2nd respondent/informant is a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe, an offence under the Act would not be made out unless there is an intention to humiliate her only for the reason that she belongs to such caste. The materials on record do not make out an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act and hence the bar under Section 18 or 18A is not attracted, goes the argument.
2.1. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the edited video uploaded by the appellant/accused contains several derogatory statements against the 2nd respondent/informant. The offences alleged are clearly made out. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the appellant/accused is required as seizure of the equipment used for editing and uploading the video is necessary and hence no pre-arrest bail can be granted.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that though notice was issued to the victim through the SHO concerned, she did not accept the notice. However, she has been informed of the pendency of the appeal. Heard both sides.
4. The prosecution case is that the appellant/accused on account of his previous enmity towards the 2nd respondent/informant as she had filed complaints against online platforms like Crime online, True T.V., Bharat Live T.V. etc., with the knowledge that she belongs to a scheduled caste community and with the intention to defame and outrage her modesty, uploaded a video in his YouTube channel. Initially the appellant/accused downloaded the videos and pictures uploaded by one Sooraj Palakkaran, editor of True T.V., in which the 2nd respondent/informant has been picturized as a person who had been arrested for immoral traffic. The appellant/accused downloaded the said videos and photographs, edited it by including an interview with the husband of the 2nd respondent/informant; his views on the topic etc., created a video using his mobile phone and other electronic devices and on 22/06/2022 uploaded the same through his YouTube channel, namely, Visal Media. Thus, the appellant/accused as per the FIR is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section 354A(i)(iii), 354A(1)(iv), 509 IPC; Section 66-E, 67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) and Section 3(1)(r), (s), (w), (ii) and Section 3(2)(va) of the Act.
5. Section 66E of the IT Act deals with punishment for violation of privacy. As per the Section, whoever, intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes or transmits the image of a private area of any person without his or her consent, under circumstances violating the privacy of that person, is liable to be punished with imprisonment or with fine or with both. Clause (c) to the Explanation to the Section defines “private area” as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast. Apparently, the materials on record now available before the court do not attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 66E of the IT Act.
6. Reference was made to Section 67A of the IT Act which says that whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form any material which contains sexually explicit act or conduct is li
Pre-arrest bail – Cyber bullying remains inadequately addressed by current legal frameworks.
The derogatory content of a video can constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes & the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, even if caste is not explicitly ....
Point of Law : SC/ST – Interpretation of Statutes - Principle, known as the 'doctrine of the ongoing statute', can be adopted in instances where it is obvious that the sweep of the Parliamentary inte....
(1) Anticipatory bail – Section 18 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 does not impose absolute fetter on power of courts to grant anticipatory bail.(2) All ....
Publication must depict actual sexual acts to invoke Section 67A of the IT Act.
Insults under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act require public visibility and an intent to humiliate; mere civil disputes do not qualify as offences under this Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between the penal provisions of Section 67 and Section 67-A of the IT Act, and the necessity of material containing sexually explic....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish the essential ingredients of an offence under the Atrocities Act and the need for specific grounds for custodial in....
Intent and context are crucial in determining the applicability of the SC/ST Act and IPC provisions regarding casteist remarks and public order.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.