1. The applicant claims to be the State General Secretary of the youth wing of the Democratic Kerala Congress. He apprehends arrest in a crime registered arraying him as the 4th accused at the Pala Police Station as Crime No. 1309 of 2009. In the aforesaid Crime, he face accusations of having committed offences under Section 354(A)(3) of the IPC, Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and under Section 120 of the Kerala Police Act , 2011.

2. The de facto complainant is a lady and the author of a recently published book. She claims to be a social activist and is the wife of a sitting member of Parliament. In her complainant, the victim states that she is very active in social media and has a “Facebook” account through which she keeps in touch with her family and friends and interacts with her followers. She recently noticed the accused indulging in an organised vituperative campaign against her online. According to the de facto complainant, the accused have posted several comments in their facebook pages making scurrilous comments against her. The pictures of herself and her husband have also been posted, making her the subject of online sexual harassment. She has extracted the Facebook posts of the accused and asserts that the posting of such sexually coloured remarks in the respective facebook pages display their hostile attitude towards her. According to her, the accused have tagged the posts and have shared them. They have also liked the posts of others and thus endorsed the views of the abusers. This is with intent to spread the libellous messages online. She checked up the posts and found it grossly inappropriate, offensive and peppered with obscenity. Insofar as the applicant herein is concerned, the allegation is that he had tagged and shared the posts of some of the accused. He has also written in his page that the wife of a politician, who is also a Member of Parliament, used to rape him for about 16 years commencing from his days in college as a student. This apparently was with reference to the victim and this fact is evident from the context under which the posts have been made. The posts have been liked, tagged and shared by the other accused as well. It is on these lines that she sought for prosecution of the offenders.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent. According to the learned counsel, by no stretch of imagination, Section 67A of the IT Act, 2000, would be attracted as the posts cannot be categorised as relating to any sexually explicit act or conduct. The rest of the offences alleged are bailable. The learned counsel made an attempt to justify the slew of posts targeting the de facto complainant and it was urged that this was the making of the victim herself. The victim had authored a book recently and in the said book, she had levelled some allegations against a young political leader. The said revelation by the de facto complainant garnered much media attention and it was the subject matter of discussion in the social media. The applicant had also participated in the said discussion. However, he had no intention to denigrate the applicant or to tarnish her image. This, in essence, are the submissions fervently advanced by the learned counsel.

4. Opposing the prayer, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation conducted till date clearly shows that the applicant herein and his associates had, in an organised manner, systematically targeted the de facto complainant and vilified her online in a most despicable manner. The investigation is in the early stages and it is too early to conclude that the offences alleged will not be attracted. It is urged that the applicant is a person who occupies a responsible position and he was not expected to revile a woman online. The posts would show that it was gender based harassment of the de facto complainant by persons wielding power with a view to subjugate her. According to the