SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 68653

HARIKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent


Advocates:
['M KIRANLAL', '', 'MANU RAMACHANDRAN', 'T S SARATH', 'R RAJESH']

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top