1. Apprehending his arrest in a case involving a non-bailable

offence, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under Sec.438

of Cr.P.C. He is not sure whether any case has been

registered against him. Therefore he could not state the

crime number of the case and the offences alleged against

him.

2. The learned senior public prosecutor Sri.B.Jayasurya

submits on instructions that a case has been registered

against the petitioner as crime No.1662/2017 at the

Chavara Thekkum Bhagom police station. It is also

submitted that the case has been registered on the

complaint made by the wife of the petitioner. Sri.B.Jayasurya

submits that the offences alleged against the petitioner are

those punishable under Sec.354D of IPC and Sec.66E of the

Information Technology Act (IT Act for short).

3. Sec.354D of IPC defines stalking and provides punishment

for it. Admittedly the petitioner has not been convicted

earlier for the offence of stalking. Therefore the offence of

3

stalking alleged against the petitioner is bailable going by

the schedule to the Cr.P.c.

4. The punishment provided in Sec.66E of the IT Act is

imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine

not exceeding two lakhs rupees or with both. Sec.77B of the

IT Act provides, inter alia, that notwithstanding anything

contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the offence

punishable with imprisonment of three years shall be

bailable. Therefore the offence under Sec.66E of the IT Act

is also bailable.

5. As the petitioner is only charged with two bailable offences

at present, his application for anticipatory bail is not

maintainable. Therefore it deserves only a dismissal.

6. Dismissed.

Sd/-

A.M.BABU

Judge

Mrcs/2.4.