IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH
Anil S. Kilor, Pravin S. Patil, JJ.
Nishant S/o. Pradeep Agrawal - Appellant
Versus
Anti Terrorist Squad, Lucknow, through Investigating Officer, Uttar Pradesh - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 2024
Decided On : 01-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction details and charges (Para 2) |
| 2. summary of prosecution claims against the accused (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. defendant’s defense strategies outlined (Para 24 , 33) |
| 4. prosecution's failure to prove intent (Para 28 , 29) |
| 5. justification of the elements required for conviction (Para 30 , 39 , 115) |
| 6. mens rea as essential for conviction (Para 35 , 106) |
| 7. conduction of testimonial evidence examined (Para 118 , 120) |
| 8. final ruling against prosecution's claims (Para 129) |
JUDGMENT :
Anil S. Kilor, J.
1. Heard.
2. This is an appeal filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code questioning the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 3rd June, 2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Nagpur in Sessions Case No.726 of 2021, thereby convicting the appellant for offences punishable under Section 66-F of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2000”) read with Section 3(1)(c) and Section 5(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1923”).
3. The appellant is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 66-F of the Act of 2000. He is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fourteen years under Section 3(1)(c) of the Act of 1923 and is further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for six months under Section 5(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) and Section 5(3) of the Act of 1923.
4. As recorded by the trial Court, it is the case of the prosecution that the informant Harishanker Mishra (PW-1) filed a First Information Report stating that he received secret information that Neha Sharma and Pooja Ranjan were operating the Facebook accounts in the fake names from Pakistan. The said foreign agents and spy are in contact via Internet through these Facebook accounts with the unknown employees holding important posts in various defence establishments in India. Important data was leaked through them, which was pertaining to National Security. The ID of Neha Sharma was URL https://www.facebook.com/100009767463432 and email ID was braveneha@yahoo.com and the ID of Pooja Rajan was URL https://www.facebook.com/100009951960524 and the email ID was poojaranjan923@gmail.com. These Facebook accounts were operated from Pakistan and it was likely to adversely affect the sovereignty, integrity and security of India, which was directly useful to an enemy. So, he filed the report at ATS, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
5. The offence was registered vide Crime No.7 of 2018 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 121A, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 66-F of the Act of 2000 and under Sections 3, 4, 5, 9 of the Act of 1923.
6. The proposal for sanction order under Section 13(3) of the Act of 1923 was sent to the Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. The investigation was handed over to the Investigating Officer Inspector Pankaj Awasthi, ATS Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur. For the investigation purpose, he received the copy of report, general diary and related documents.
7. After going through the report, he recorded the statement of Inspector Harishankar Mishra, the informant, and Yogendranath Shukla, the Head Constable, who registered the offence. He issued the letter to the Director, Indian Computer Emergency Response Team, Ministry of Information and Technology, Government of India, Delhi and sought the details of Facebook accounts and IP, creation IP address and other relevant details. He issued letter by official e-mail to Deputy Superintendent of Police Sonkar.
8. He opened the Facebook accounts of Pooja Ranjan and Neha Sharma and found two Scientists, namely Debmalya Roy and Aarti Kolhe, working in DMSRDE, Kanpur and accused Nishant Agrawal, working at BrahMos Aerospace, Nagpur are in the friend-list of Pooja Ranjan and Neha Sharma. With the help of Cert-In, New Delhi, the Inves
AI
Mens rea is essential for convictions under cyber terrorism and espionage statutes; negligence alone does not meet the threshold required for severe charges.
Bail for offences under the Official Secrets Act is not granted lightly when serious allegations of espionage and substantial evidence exist against the accused.
UA(P) Act - Grant or release on bail to an accused person, is enunciated as a non-obstante clause, which clearly and unequivocally postulates that, if the Court is of the opinion that, there are reas....
Point of Law; In case of acquittal, it is settled law that if two views are possible, the appellate court should adopt the view which is favourable to the accused
High Court should be extremely cautious about interfering with the investigation and should not stall the investigation unless it is convinced beyond any manner of doubt that FIR does not disclose an....
The prosecution must prove the accused's knowledge and intent in theft cases. Lack of evidence regarding the accused's knowledge of the stolen property can lead to acquittal.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.