Fr. Jaison Kollannur v. State of Kerala

The Cyber Blog IndiaCase SummaryLeave a Comment

Fr. Jaison Kollannur v. State of Kerala

Fr. Jaison Kollannur v. State of Kerala
In the High Court of Kerala
B.A. 14-15/2013
Before Justice P. Bhavadasan
Decided on January 11, 2013

Relevancy of the case: Bail in a case involving Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 along with Sections 34, 120(B), 406, 420, and 465 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Statutes & Provisions Involved

  • The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 34, 120(B), 406, 420, 465)
  • The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66)
  • The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 439)

Relevant Facts of the Case

  • The petitioner in B.A. 14/2013 is the Secretary of the youth organization by name KCYM which directly comes under the Kerala Catholic Bishops Council.
  • The said organization is engaged in several welfare activities including educational activities. The first accused in the case represented to the organization that for a conference which is to be held from May 26 to June 1, if the organization is interested, it could send its representatives.
  • Believing the representations so made, arrangements were made by the organization for a few members to attend the conference.
  • Amounts were received from them and it so turned out that some persons who were recruited by the first accused had travel documents and experience certificates.
  • When they reached Chennai, it was found that some of the documents were not genuine and fraud was detected.
  • Coming to know about the said activities of the first accused, it is claimed that the third accused withdrew from the transaction and repaid the amount which he had collected from the representatives who had an intimation to go for the conference.
  • Later on, the office of the first accused was raided and incriminating materials were recovered from his office.

Prominent Arguments

The petitioners’ counsel:

  • It was pointed out that no offence has been committed by the petitioners in these petitions and their only fault is that they had associated themselves with the first accused. It is also pointed out that soon after, the petitioner in B.A. 14/2013 came to know about the fraud, he withdrew from the transactions and had repaid the amount showing their bona fide intention. Only because there were correspondences and transactions between the petitioner in BA 14/2013 and the first accused, they have been arrayed as accused.

Opinion of the Bench

  • After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned DGP, considering the nature of allegations, it is felt that relief can be granted to the petitioner on stringent conditions. It was pointed out that the petitioners in B.A. 15/2013 are employed as volunteers of the organization of the third accused.

Final Decision

  • Petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 19.01.2013, who, after interrogation, shall produce the petitioners before the JFCM court concerned, which, on applications for bail filed by the petitioners shall release them on bail on each of them executing a bond for ₹25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the said court.
  • Hence, the bail is granted with necessary bail conditions attached to it. If any of the conditions are violated, the bail granted shall be cancelled out.

This case summary has been prepared by Mansi Vats, an undergraduate student at UPES School of Law, Dehradun, during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in June/July 2020.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *