The main legal point established in the judgment is the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the necessity for the appellants to cooperate if their presence is required in the future.

Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Common FIR No.2 of 2020 registered at Nodal Cyber Police Station, Mumbai - Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - [Section 438 of CrPC, 1973] - The court granted anticipatory bail to the appellants subject to conditions and emphasized the necessity for the appellants to cooperate if their presence is required in the future.
Fact of the Case:

Applications seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were filed in relation to Common FIR No.2 of 2020 registered at Nodal Cyber Police Station, Mumbai. Anticipatory bail was denied in the impugned order, but there were orders of interim protection throughout. The appellants appealed against the denial of anticipatory bail.
Finding of the Court:

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the court found that the appellants should be released on anticipatory bail and directed the appellants to cooperate if their presence is required in the future.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellants should be granted anticipatory bail in the cases related to Common FIR No.2 of 2020 registered at Nodal Cyber Police Station, Mumbai.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided that the appellants should be released on anticipatory bail and emphasized the necessity for the appellants to cooperate if their presence is required in the future.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the court directed that the appellants will be released on anticipatory bail subject to conditions as may be imposed by the trial Court. It was made a condition that the appellants shall fully cooperate if their presence is required in the future.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Common FIR No.2 of 2020 registered at Nodal Cyber Police Station, Mumbai, has generated applications seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

3. By the impugned order, in all these cases, anticipatory bail has been denied.

4. There were orders of interim protection, however, in all these cases throughout.

5. When these matters came up, we have heard learned counsel including learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.

6. We have also heard Mr. Aaditya Pande, learned counsel for the State.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State would take the following stand; chargesheet has been filed after investigation. He would submit that in case the Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail, it must be made clear that the appellants will cooperate in case it becomes necessary.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that these are cases where the appellants should be released on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. We direct that the appellants will be released on anticipatory bail subject to conditions as may be imposed by the trial Court. We make it a condition that if in case the presence of the appellants are required in future, they shall fully cooperate. We make it clear that the Court will necessarily incorporate this as a condition for grant of anticipatory bail.

9. The appeals are allowed as above.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document