Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 84 (RAJ)

Mahesh Virani v. State of Rajasthan

2011-01-11

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. This second bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Previously the bail application filed by the accused petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.10.2009 with the liberty to move regular bail application before the trial court immediately after recording the statement of the prosecutrix. Hence this second bail application has been filed after recording of the statement of prosecutrix. Mr. Amit Jindal, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner contended that the charge has been framed against the accused petitioner only for offence under Section 67 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000, which is a bailable offence having sentence of 3 years, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, reads as under: "67. Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form- Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if tis effect is such as to tend to deprive and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and with the fine which may extend to five lakh rupees and in the event of second or subsequent conviction with term which may extend to five years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees." 3. Section 77 B of the IT Act provides that the offences with three years imprisonment is bailable. Section 77 B of the IT Act, 2000 reads as under: "77 B. Offence with three years imprisonment to be bailable (1) 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 punishable with imprisonment of three years shall be bailable." 4. In the statement before the court, according to the learned counsel for the accused petitioner the prosecutrix has not stated anything about the accused petitioner regarding offence of rape and charge against the accused petitioner is only for Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. In the statement before the court, according to the learned counsel for the accused petitioner the prosecutrix has not stated anything about the accused petitioner regarding offence of rape and charge against the accused petitioner is only for Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application but admits this fact that the charge has been framed against the accused petitioner is only for section 67 of the IT Act, 2000 and for this offence sentence provided is three years and bailable. The learned counsel for the accused petitioner states that it is the first offence of the accused petitioner and the offence is bailable hence the accused petitioner should be released on bail. 5. For these reasons, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the accused petitioner Mahesh Virani son of Gurumukh Das, shall be released on bail provided he shall submit bail bond in the amount of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the amount of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance during thee course of trial on all dates of hearing and as when he is called upon to do so. The complainant or the State is free to move application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. if the accused petitioner commits any types of offence in future.