DR A K KOSHY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an applica-tion for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by Dr. K.A. Koshy and Dr. Serena, who are two accused persons among the accused in Crime No.30 of 2010 of Rajpura City Police Station, Patiala District, Punjab.

(2.) The petitioners apprehend arrest in Crime No.30 of 2010, where the offences alleged, going by Annexure A First Infor-mation Report, are under Section 65 and 66(1) and (2) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. After hearing all the counsel and the learned Additional Advocate General of the State of Punjab, it is fairly clear that the offences alleged against the accused in-clude the offences under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code as well.

(3.) In the Bail Application, the offences under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code were not mentioned. When the Bail Application came up for admission, the undertaking made by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 and 3 that the petitioners will not be arrested for a period of two weeks was recorded and urgent notice was ordered to respondent No.2, the S.I. of Police, Rajpura City Police Station, Patiala, Punjab. It is brought to my notice that the offence under Sections 65 and 66 of the Information Technology Act is bailable in view of Section 77B of the In-formation Technology Act. Section 77B was introduced by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008 (Act 10 of 2009). Section 77B provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the offence punishable with imprisonment of three years and above shall be cognizable and the offence punish-able with imprisonment of three years shall be bailable. The learned counsel for the pe-titioners submitted that he inadvertently omitted to notice Section 77B of the Infor-mation Technology Act. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submit-ted that as non-bailable offences under Sec-tions 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code are also involved, though the petitioners were not aware of the same and though it was not mentioned in the Bail Application, the interim order could be legally sustained and the Bail Application could be main-tained.