ORDER
The petitioner stands accused of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 66A and 67A of the Information Technology Act. The allegation against the petitioner appears to be that he, after creating a profile in the name ‘Sreya Varma’, uploaded the photographs of the de facto complainant and her sister. It is also alleged that the said profile contains full of vulgar photos.
2. The petitioner would say that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the matter. At any rate, according to him, Section 67A of IT Act is not attracted to the case since there is no publication of the objectionable materials as mentioned in the Section. It is also pointed out that at worst offence under Section 67 of IT Act alone is attracted. He therefore seeks pre-arrest bail.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that the claim of the petitioner may not be true. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has indeed published the images of the victim in a vulgar manner. It is further pointed out that the investigation is at an infant stage.
4. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and also after having perused the Case Diary, it is difficult to accept the claim of the petitioner that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is also as of now difficult to accept the plea that Section 67A of IT Act may not be attracted.
5. This Court is to remind itself that the First Information Report is only to set the law in motion and what actually is the offence committed is a matter to be determined at a later stage.
It is not proper for this Court to probe into the veracity of the allegations as of now. Currently, this Court can act upon only based on the materials now available.
6. Considering the nature of the allegations against the petitioner, the manner in which the offence was committed, the consequence of the act committed by the petitioner, the agony suffered by the victim and also the fact that the investigation is at an infant stage, this Court is precluded from exercising its extra ordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. The application is only to be dismissed and I do so.
However, if the petitioner is so advised, he may surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 30.10.2013 who, after interrogation, shall produce him before the Court concerned who, on an application of bail being moved by the petitioner, may dispose of the same in accordance with law.