IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1402 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

SRI USMAN N,

AGED 50 YEARS,

S/O HUSSAINAR,

RESIDENT OF 2-182 A,

NEKKILU HOUSE,

NARIMOGARU VILLAGE,

KADABA TALUK 3 574221,

DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI AKASH B SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA,

REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,

CEN POLICE STATION MANGALORE,

DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT 3 574001,

REPRESENTED BY THE SPP

HIGH COURT BUILDING,

BANGALORE - 560 001. &RESPONDENT

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

****

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438

CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE

EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.1/2021 OF D.K. CEB CRIME P.S.,

D.K., DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 67A, 67B OF I.T ACT.

2

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING:

ORDER

This petition is filed by accused No.1 seeking anticipatory bail

in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.01/2021 of

D.K. CEN Crime Police Station, Mangaluru, registered for the

offence punishable under Sections 67B and 67A of Information

Technology Act, 2000.

2.

In pursuance of the cyber Tip Line Report No.49305151

and the directions issued by S.P., Cyber Crime Branch, a criminal

complaint was registered. After registering the case, the police

officials are making attempts to arrest the petitioner. The bail

petition filed before the sessions Court is rejected.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. Perused the

prosecution records.

4.

It is the contention of learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner that he is falsely implicated in this case. There is no

prima-facie material to attract the ingredients of Section 67A and

3

67B of the Information Technology Act. In the event of arrest and

detention, the petitioner would be put to great hardship and

injustice.

5.

Per contra the learned HCGP would oppose the grant of

bail contending that the petitioner has committed the offence as

stated in the report. There are no grounds to hold that he has been

falsely implicated in this case.

6.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this

Court has gone through the records.

7.

The recitals in the seizure mahazar are that in a video

of 2.54 minutes duration a male and a female are shown

performing sexual acts and there is an infant child with them.

Except the said contention, no other records are forthcoming to

prove the allegations. During the course of arguments, learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that the facebook ID which has

been referred in the police records does not belong to him, but the

said facebook ID is in the name of Jamsheera P.K. The petitioner

4

has been falsely implicated in this case. At this stage, it is needless

to make elaborate discussion about these records.

8.

The grounds stated in the petition and the submission

of learned counsel for the petitioner goes to prove the apprehension

of the petitioner regarding his arrest and detention. The main

objection of the prosecution is that in the event of granting bail, the

petitioner is likely to interfere with the investigation and the said

objection may be set right by imposing stringent conditions.

9.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, there are

valid grounds for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject

to certain terms and conditions. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass

the following:

ORDER

Criminal petition is allowed.

Consequently, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail

in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.01/2021 of

D.K. CEN Crime Police Station, Mangaluru, registered for the

offence punishable u