HARIKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.