CRL OP(MD). No.9531 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

Date : 19/07/2021

PRESENT

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

CRL OP(MD). No.9531 of 2021

(Through Video Conference)

Arulraj

... Petitioner/ Accused No.2

Vs

State rep. By

The Inspector of Police,

Kayathar Police Station,

Thoothukudi District.

Crime No.426/2021.

... Respondent/ Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Mohideen Basha, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.M.Muthumanickam,

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C

PRAYER:- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.426 of 2021 on the file

of the respondent police.

ORDER: The Court made the following order :-

The petitioner/accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of

the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under

Sections 294(b), 506(ii) of IPC and Section 67 of Information

Technology Act, in Crime No.426 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant

is a functionary in AIADMK party. He found in social media a post

paying obituary to Mr.Kadambur Raju, Former Minister. That post was

circulated by the accused Sankarasubbu and Arulraj. On 01.07.2021,

at about 07.00 pm., when the defacto complainant asked the accused

as to why they made false post paying obituary in social media, the

accused scolded in filthy language and criminally intimidated him.

Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this

case. Except the allegation that he had also disseminated the

1/3

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

CRL OP(MD). No.9531 of 2021

information with regard to paying obituary to Mr.Kadambur Raju in

social media, there is no specific allegation that he had made

criminal intimidation to the defacto complainant. He further

submitted that Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is

not attracted to the facts of the present case. According to the

learned counsel, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000

deals only with publication or transmission in electronic form, any

material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or

its effect is such as to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely,

having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear

the matter contained or embodied in it. Therefore, he seeks

anticipatory bail for the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent

strongly opposed this petition on the ground that investigation is

not completed.

5.Taking note of the allegations made against the petitioner

that he along with other accused disseminated the alleged false news

of death Mr.Kadambur Raju, the fact that there is no allegation that

the petitioner also made criminal intimidation and the legal

submission that Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000

is not attracted to the present case, this Court is inclined to

grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

The application of Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000,

to the facts of the case is left open for consideration in trial.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on

bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of

fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,

before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kovilpatti, on

condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a

like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police

officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned

Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

[a]the petitioner and the su