The petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking grant

of anticipatory bail in Crime No.151/2022 of Tumakuru CEN

Crime Police Station, pending on the file of the Court of III

Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 67(A) and 67(B) of

Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short 'I.T.')on the basis

of the first information lodged by the informant- Sri.

Krishnamurthy.

2.

Heard Sri. Manjunath B.R., learned Counsel for the

petitioner and Sri. Rahul Rai, learned High Court Government

Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on

record.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the petitioner is the sole accused. He has not committed any of

- 3 -

the offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the

matter

without

any

basis.

He

is

having

reasonable

apprehension of being arrested. Therefore, he is before this

Court. It is alleged that the petitioner had uploaded and

transmitted obscene photos and videos in the Social Media.

There is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. As per

Section 78 of I.T. Act. investigation of such case is to be

undertaken only by the Inspector of Police. But in the present

case, the case came to be registered by the PSI. Therefore, the

petitioner is entitled for grant of bail. Learned counsel further

submitted that the petitioner is the permanent resident of the

address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready

and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be

imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition in

the interest of justice.

4.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are

made against the petitioner for having committed the offences.

The petitioner had uploaded and transmitted obscene photos

and videos in the social media. A Committee was constituted by

the Hon'ble Apex Court and directions were issued to monitor

- 4 -

such publishing and transmitting the contents in Social Media.

When the social media was being monitored, it was found that

obscene photos were being uploaded from the IP address of the

petitioner. Therefore, the complaint came to be registered. The

DYSP undertook investigation. The petitioner is absconding

since the date of registration of the case. Therefore, if the

petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he may never turn up

before the Investigating Officer and he may abscond or may

commit similar offences, threaten or tamper the prosecution

witnesses. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of

anticipatory bail and he prays for dismissal of the petition.

5.

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise

for my consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled

for grant of anticipatory bail under Section

438 of Cr.P.C.?”

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the

following:

- 5 -

R E A S O N S

6.

The allegations made against the petitioner is of

serious nature. It is stated that he was publishing and

transmitting the materials containing sexually explicit acts, in

the Social Media which was traced by the Monitoring Unit, led

by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cyber Training and

Research Division, CID, Bengaluru. The informant lodged the

first information and FIR came to be registered for the

aforesaid offences. Admittedly, the presence of the petitioner

could not be secured by the Investigating Officer.

7.

The contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that there is inordinate delay in lodging the compliant

cannot be accepted at this stage, looking to the nature of the

allegations. Looking to the nature of offence and allegations

made against the petitioner, he is required for custodial

interrogation and for seizure of electronic device which are used

for the commission of offence.

8.

Even though, the learned counsel for the petitioner

contended that the