Vipin Joy vs State Of Kerala

This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS), seeking pre-arrest bail.

The applicant is the accused No.2 in Crime No.16/2025 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 318(4) and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The prosecution case, in short, is that the accused, with an intention to insult the defacto complainant and to obtain wrongful gain, circulated the photo of the defacto complainant, which was posted by her in her Instagram account, through the paid telegram groups, and without the consent of the defacto complainant, used her photos for the purpose of advertisement in telegram groups, circulated her morphed photos in the paid telegram groups, thereafter obtained money through Google Pay and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

I have heard Sri.George Sebastian, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.V.Vinay, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence, he is entitled to bail. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as part of the applicant's intentional criminal acts, and if he is released on bail at this stage, it will affect the course of the investigation.

The law regarding the grant or refusal of pre-arrest bail is well settled. Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a matter of course. The power under Section 482 of BNSS could be exercised only when a special case is made out, that too, recording reasons thereof. Perusal of the case diary reveals that the accusation made against the applicant is very serious in nature, and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on his part. The investigation conducted reveals the specific involvement of the applicant in the crime. The photograph of the defacto complainant posted on her Instagram story and her morphed photograph were circulated on Telegram through pornographic paid groups. The details of the admin accounts were obtained from the law enforcement authorities of Telegram. As per the reply given by the Telegram authorities, the mobile number 9633644125 linked to the said account was obtained and examined. The number was found to be registered in the name of the applicant. The applicant was issued with notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. He appeared before the police and his phone was taken into custody. Thereafter, he left the police station, stating that he was going out to have food, and did not return. Hence, he could not be questioned further.

The investigation is in a preliminary stage. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for the investigation. As rightly argued by the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, the possibility of the applicant influencing the witnesses and interfering with the investigation cannot be ruled out if he is released on bail. Considering the gravity of the offence and stage of the investigation, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where the extraordinary jurisdiction vested with this Court under Section 482 of BNSS could be invoked.

The bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.