Judgment · High Court · 2012
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THRISSUR WEST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR-680 001. (CRIME NO.1886 OF 2011), R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SURESH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.NO.178 OF 2012 --------------------------------------------- Dated 31st January, 2012 ORDER Apprehending arrest in Crime No.1886/2011 of Thrissur West Police Station, registered for the offence under Sections 66 A and 66 C of Information Technology Act, petitioner filed this petition under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail.
2. Section 77 B of Information Technology Act provides that not withstanding anything contained in Code of Criminal Procedure, the offence punishable with imprisonment of three years and above shall be cognizable and offence punishable with imprisonment of three years shall bailable. Hence offence BA 178/12 2 under Section 66 A and 66 C are bailable offences. In such circumstances, petition under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure will not lie. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Information Technology Act, 2000; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 31 Jan 2012. The bench was M SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.