Back
2025 Supreme(KER) 1000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Sreekumar A.V., Son Of Late Madhava Warrier – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala and Anr. – Respondents
B.A.No.17 of 2025
Decided On : 06-01-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADVS. T.RAMPRASAD UNNI K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) S.M.PRASANTH SHEHIN S. DEVIKA S. RESHMA DAS P.
For the Respondent: BY ADV. SRI.NOUSHAD K.A-SR.PP
The court emphasized the necessity of consent for publication and the principles governing bail, asserting that arrest should not be routine but justified.
Headnote:
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 482 - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 72 - Allegations of unauthorized publication of autobiography without consent - The petitioner, an employee of DC Books, is accused of publishing a book without the writer's consent, raising serious legal concerns regarding the publication process. The court emphasizes the necessity of consent in publishing and the implications of the alleged offences under the IT Act and BNS. (Paras 3, 4, 7, 10)
(B) Bail - Principles governing bail - The court reiterates that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, emphasizing the need for a justified basis for arrest. The court refers to established precedents that guide the decision-making process regarding bail, highlighting the importance of personal liberty and the conditions under which arrest should be made. (Paras 10, 11, 12)
ORDER :
(P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.)
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita .
2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.1889 of 2024 of Kottayam East Police Station, Kottayam. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 72 of the Information Technology Act , 2000 and Sections 316(2) and 318(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha ,2023.
3. According to the petitioner, he is an employee of DC Books, Kottayam and he is functioning as Senior Deputy Editor. According to the petitioner, his responsibility is to discharge functions that are entrusted to him by his employer. It is the case of the petitioner that, one Sri. Raghunath, Bureau Chief of the Deshabhimani Daily, Kannur Edition, had sent through the e-mail of DC Books, the matter and material for a book to be published by DC Books relating to the experiences and memories of Sri. E. P. Jayarajan, a prominent leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and a member of its Central Committee and State Secretariat. He was also the convener of the Left Democratic Front. It is the case of the petitioner that, he put up the same before the editorial board for publication. Initially, chapters 1 to 7 were furnished to the publisher followed by other portions and photographs till 02.11.2024. As a functionary of DC Books, the petitioner was entrusted to take steps for publication of the book. According to the petitioner, the editorial board gave a title to the book in Malayalam "Kattan Chayayum Parippuvadayum - Oru Communistinte Jeevitham". It is also submitted that the petitioner has no direct involvement in the case.
4. The prosecution case is that the defacto complainant, who is the Central Committee member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the State Secretariat member of the said party, was humiliated by the accused in the above case. According to the defacto complainant, he never gave any consent to the DC Books for publishing his autobiography. It is the definite case of the defacto complainant that the DC Books published a notice fixing the date of release of the book without any agreement with the defacto complainant. It is also submitted that a heading to the book is also decided by the DC Books without the consent of the writer.
5. Heard Adv.K. Ramkumar, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by his retaining counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. I am surprised to see that DC Books, one of the establishments that released several Malayalam books, published such a notice without the consent of the writer. This Court put a question to the Senior Counsel whether any consent was obtained from the writer of the book for publishing such a notice. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner is not responsible, but there is nothing to show that such a consent was given by the writer of the book. That itself shows the seriousness of the case. Without getting the permission of the writer, the release date of a book is published and a title to the book is also decided by the editorial committee of the DC Books. I am of theprima facie opinion that the offence alleged are made out. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner is not involved in this case and he is only an employee. There are others to be implicated. That is a matter to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. I do not want to make any observation about the same. The investigation is at the preliminary stage and the investigation can go on. The Investigating Officer is free to investigate the matter and can implicate the persons who are responsible for the same.
7. Coming back to the question of bail to the petitioner, the first offence alleged is under Section 72 of the IT Act. The maximum sentence that can be imposed is two years. The other offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 316(2) of the BNS. The maximum punishment that can be imposed is five
