IMPORTANT POINT
Bail is not a right but a privilege, especially in serious offenses, and ongoing investigations can justify denial of bail.

ORDER :

V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.

This Criminal Petition, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C. (New Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), is filed by the petitioner/A.1 seeking regular bail in Crime No.118 of 2024 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 370, 365, 374, 384 and 344 read with 120B I.P.C. and Sections 66-C, 66-D and 66-F of Information Technology Act, 2000.

2. Heard Sri R. Siva Sai Swarup, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

3. Perused the record.

4. The following points are urged in the bail petition :

The petitioner is totally innocent, and the crime is registered without any material and there is no evidence prima facie supporting the accusation against the petitioner.

The allegation made in the written information of the de facto complainant is totally false and is created only for the purpose of registering this case. The petitioner and the de facto complainant are known to each other and they all hail from Srikakulam District. Suppressing the fact that the brother of de facto complainant worked abroad, false information was lodged against the petitioner and others.

The confession allegedly recorded by the police is not valid in the eyes of the law.

The petitioner is permanent resident of Prasad Gardens at Visakhapatnam and is willing to cooperate with the investigation agency and is obliged to comply with any of the conditions that may be imposed in the event of release on bail.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner initially argued that the investigation agency failed to comply with the procedure provided under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, ‘the Act, 2000’) since the said enactment mandates investigation of a case by an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police but the present case was investigated into by an Inspector of Police and therefore, the registration of crime is invalid and further investigation is invalid. However, the learned counsel during further hearing of the bail petition, after noticing the correct principles of law, admits that by virtue of Act 10 of 2009 which is the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 the principal Act, namely, the Information Technology Act, 2000 was amended and at present as per Section 78 of the Act, 2000 a police officer not below the rank of Inspector is competent to investigate any offence under the Act, 2000. By making such submissions the learned counsel does not dispute the competence of the investigation agency in registering the crime which is investigated by Inspector of Police.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested and was remanded to judicial custody on 02.06.2024 and the petitioner’s bail application in Crl.M.P.No.1600 of 2024 was dismissed by learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam on 16.07.2024.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that bail is the rule and jail is an exception and that is settled law. In support of it, the learned counsel cited Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1945. That was a case where their Lordships were pleased to lay down the above stated principle. In that case the investigation was over and charge sheet was filed. The accused was arrested on 12.07.2022 and was enlarged on bail by the orders of their Lordships dated 13.08.2024. Their Lordships stated that once the case is made out for grant of bail the Court cannot decline to grant the bail.

8. Learned counsel also cited Aluka Sandra Orewa @ Benny v. State of Karnataka, 2021 1 Crimes(HC) 226. That was a case of regular bail where the offences alleged in the charge sheet were under Sections 66-C and 66-D of the Act, 2000. Though initially Section 420 I.P.C. was registered, after due investigation, the said provision was omitted. The provisions for which the charge sheet was filed were found to be bailable offences. It was