DELHI HIGH COURT
Brijesh Sethi, J.
Siddhant Sharma —Petitioner
versus
State (Govt of NCT) Delhi —Respondent
Bail Appln.No.406 of 2019
Decided on 22.1.2020
Information Technology Act, 2000 – Section 67 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 438 and 482 – Anticipatory bail application – Complainant is estranged wife of petitioner – She claims that her picture has been used as profile picture on a fake Facebook profile and there are some other vulgar pictures on said Facebook profile – Investigation has revealed that CDR of mobile of petitioner shows that he created the Facebook account and he was present at the location where router was installed – There is supplementary complaint of complainant in which she has alleged that petitioner is continuously harassing her and is using her name and picture in his Facebook account to humiliate her – Custodial interrogation of petitioner is required for the purpose of recovery of Laptop vide which he has created Facebook account of complainant and which has not been provided by him to investigating officer – No grounds for anticipatory bail are made out – Anticipatory bail application dismissed. (Paras 6, 7, 8 and 9)
Result: Application dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Brijesh Sethi, J.—Vide this order, I shall dispose of an anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner Siddhant Sharma under section 438 Cr.P.C. r/w. section 482 CrPC in FIR No. 146/18 u/s. 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, PS Rani Bagh.
2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail on the ground that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present FIR. The present FIR is the result of matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and his wife, who has not only filed the present complaint on the false and frivolous grounds but has also filed another complaint u/s. 498-A/406/34 of IPC which has been registered as FIR No. 0186/18 at PS Rani Bagh on 09.08.2018.
3. It is submitted that complainant who is wife of the petitioner has left his company on 05.05.2018 and filed the present complaint u/s 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in which she claims that her picture has been used as profile picture on a fake Facebook profile and there are some other vulgar pictures on the said Facebook profile. It is submitted that the present complaint is counter blast to the revelation of relationship of the complainant with her boyfriend Utkarsh Singh, who were caught red handed by the petitioner. It is submitted that complainant joined Amity University in the month of February, 2017 and soon she got in an extra marital affair with Utkarsh Singh, and started spending time with him in the university and over the phone and the said relationship is clear from the call records of mobile no. 9999898969, which was used by the complainant between April 2018 to June 2018. When petitioner got to know about the extra marital affair of the complainant, he had brought it to her notice. Initially she did not accept the said fact but later on accepted her infatuation with said Utkarsh Singh and convinced the petitioner that she will not speak with him in future. However, in the month of May, 2018 petitioner had again caught the complainant speaking with said Utkarsh Singh late in the night and pursuant to this, the petitioner and complainant had long arguments and, therafter, the complainant left along with her parents to her parents’ house with all her belongings on 05.05.2018. it is submitted that complainant after leaving the petitioner is still continuing her illicit relationships with the Utkarsh Singh and the same is clear from the receipt obtained from the Hotel booked by the complainant on 06.06.2018 in Noida. Petitioner has managed to get the receipt and the photo-id of the said Utkarsh Singh submitted at the time of check in into the hotel.
4. It is submitted that complaints filed by the complainant are in retaliation to revelation of her extra marital affair and she is using the resources of her father to pressurize him for divorce. On 20.10.2018 when the petitioner went to meet the concerned IO, he was asked to settle the matter and divorce the complainant in a coercive manner, to which he refused and mentioned his willingness to stay with the complainant as husband and wife, forgiving all her misdeeds. The petitioner had moved an application u/s 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail before Ld. ASJ, North-West, Rohini Courts, New Delhi. The said application of the petitioner was allowed by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 22.12.2018 and it was directed that in the event of arrest, petitioner/applicant be released on bail till 30.01.2019, subject to his joining the investigation and co-operating with the investigating agency. The petitioner had further moved an application u/s 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail before Ld. ASJ, North-West, Rohini Courts, New Delhi. However the said application of the petitioner was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 29.01.2019. The order dated 29.01.2019 itself mentions the fact that the petitioner joined the investigations and had met the IO on 25.12.2018, 26.12.2018 and has furnished documents proving his at
SupremeToday
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.