Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Del) 977

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Talwant Singh, J.
Himanshu Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State NCT Of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Application No. 929 of 2022
Decided On : 05-05-2022

Advocates appeared:
Prashant Mendiratta, Advocate, B. Venkatraman, Advocate, Ravi Nayak, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the seriousness of the allegations, the status of the accused as a first-time offender, and the imposition of specific conditions for granting bail.

Headnote:
Regular Bail - Information Technology Act - Section 354(D) IPC, Section 66(E)/67(a) of Information Technology Act, 2000 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 67(a) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner. The court also highlighted the conditions imposed for granting bail and the reasoning behind the decision.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner applied for regular bail after being accused of offenses under Section 354(D) of IPC and Section 66(E)/67(a) of Information Technology Act, 2000. The petitioner and the complainant were in a live-in relationship, and the allegations against the petitioner included posting pictures of the complainant on Instagram.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner was a first-time offender and that the only non-bailable section invoked against him was Section 67(a) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The court considered the seriousness of the allegations, the pending investigation, and the conduct of the accused in making the complainant feel unsafe.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the seriousness of the allegations, the conduct of the accused, and the pendency of the trial. The court also considered the grounds of opposition presented by the State and the petitioner's compliance with the conditions for granting bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the seriousness of the allegations, the pending investigation, and the petitioner's status as a first-time offender. The court imposed specific conditions for granting bail, considering the safety of the complainant and the preservation of electronic evidence.
Final Decision: The court granted regular bail to the petitioner on the conditions that he does not contact the complainant, does not tamper with electronic evidence, provides voice samples, does not circulate defamatory material, does not leave the country without permission, and appears before the court on all listed dates.

JUDGMENT

Talwant Singh, J. - This is an application for regular bail moved by the petitioner in case FIR No. 0279 dated 03.06.2021, which was registered under Section 354 (D) IPC and Section 66(E)/67(a) of Information Technology act, 2000 at PS amar Colony, District South East, New Delhi.

2. The accused had earlier approached the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate for his regular bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed on 16.03.2022 and the learned aSJ had dismissed his regular bail application vide order dated 04.03.2022.

3. Prior to this, the petitioner had filed an anticipatory Bail application No.3390/2021, which was dismissed on 24.11.2021 by the Court of learned aSJ. He had also moved this Court by filing an anticipatory bail application which was numbered as Bail application No. 4240/2021. The petitioner withdrew the said application on 02.02.2022 seeking leave to withdraw the said application, then surrender and seek regular bail. Thereafter, the petitioner suffered from Covid and after recovery, he surrendered on 22.02.2022 and since then he is in judicial custody.

4. It has been further submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the facts leading to filing of the present application are that he is 30 years old graduate and has not committed any of the offences as alleged in the FIR. The petitioner and the complainant have known each other since March 2019 as both of them are gamers and they had met on a virtual gaming platform.

5. The petitioner was served with a notice under Section 41a Cr.P.C. on 04.10.2021. The petitioner, in compliance to the said notice, appeared before the police officials on 11.10.2021, and thereafter, he provided all the information sought by the police officials. He had also surrendered his mobile phone as asked by the police officials.

5.1 He had also opened his iCloud account on his mobile phone and showed all the contents to the IO and similarly, the contents on his computer were also shown.

5.2 He had also informed the police officials that his earlier iPhone X had developed some technical problem, so he had sold it off but his apple ID remains the same.

6. Thereafter, he was asked to appear on 19.11.2021.

7. Later on, he received a call from a police official that he had to appear on 19.10.2021 but he informed that he was already asked to appear on 19.11.2021, so he had made his travel arrangements accordingly. Feeling apprehensive, the petitioner moved an anticipatory bail application, which came up for hearing on 20.11.2021 before the learned aSJ, which was adjourned to 24.11.2021 and interim protection was granted. The petitioner appeared before the IO on 20.11.2021 to join investigation.

8. The petitioner has been accused of having committed offences under Section 354(D) of IPC and and Section 66(E) of the Information Technology act, 2000, which are bailable offences and only non-bailable offence alleged against him is under Section 67(a) of the Information Technology act, 2000. as per the petitioner, the said Section is not attracted to the facts of the case.

9. The petitioner surrendered on 22.02.2022, and thereafter, he is still in custody.

10. Notice was issued to the State. Status report was filed.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the facts mentioned herein above. He has further submitted that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he had posted on Instagram 4-5 pictures of the petitioner kissing the complainant on her cheek. Both of them were in live-in relationship. The petitioner has been in custody for the last more than two months.

12. Charge sheet stands filed and the trial of the matter will take a long time and the petitioner is ready to comply with any conditions to be imposed by this Court.

13. On the other hand, learned aPP has relied upon the status report and has reiterated the grounds of the opposition mentioned in the status report. The said grounds are reproduced here under:

'GROUND O