Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 1852
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.
SANDEEP KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB – Respondent
CRM-M-22095 of 2018 (O&M)
Decided on : 01-06-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. M.K. Dhot, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Pawan Sharda, Sr. DAG, Punjab
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the seriousness of the allegations, including the delivery of obscene messages and the addition of non-bailable sections, warranted custodial interrogation and dismissal of the anticipatory bail plea.
Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - IT Act and IPC - The court dismissed the petitioner's plea for anticipatory bail in a case involving Sections 66, 66-A of IT Act, Sections 509, 506 of IPC, and Section 67-A of IT Act added later on. The court considered the petitioner's role as a Postman, the alleged delivery of obscene messages, and the necessity of custodial interrogation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving Sections 66, 66-A of IT Act, Sections 509, 506 of IPC, and Section 67-A of IT Act added later on. The petitioner, who had served as a Postman, was accused of delivering a parcel containing an ATM card and subsequently sending obscene messages to the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petitioner's plea for anticipatory bail, considering the allegations of delivering obscene messages and the necessity of custodial interrogation. The court also noted the opposition from the State counsel regarding the petitioner's role as a Postman and the addition of non-bailable sections to the case.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's role as a Postman, the delivery of obscene messages, the addition of non-bailable sections to the case, and the necessity of custodial interrogation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the petitioner's role as a Postman and the alleged delivery of obscene messages, along with the addition of non-bailable sections, warranted custodial interrogation and dismissal of the anticipatory bail plea.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's plea for anticipatory bail, citing the necessity of custodial interrogation and the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner.
ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.
1. Petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 126 dated 15.09.2016 registered under Sections 66, 66-A of IT Act, Sections 509, 506, of IPC (Section 67-A of IT Act and Section 201 IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.
2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had served as a Postman and was known to the complainant as he had delivered parcel containing the ATM card and thereafter they remained in touch for a while. The counsel states that a compromise had also been effected and the police has added Section 67-A of the IT Act and that is the only Section which is non-bailable and the petitioner had been allowed police bail earlier. The counsel says that when a person has been arrested under some Sections and later on another non-bailable section is added then he is entitled to bail. Counsel refers to Balbir Singh and another v. State of Punjab 2017(4) Law Herald 3488.
3. The State counsel opposes the prayer and urges that the petitioner is not a Postman but his wife is in postal service and the fact is that she had never gone to office and her husband was working in her place. The counsel states that the petitioner had delivered a parcel to the complainant and thereafter started sending obscene messages after precuring her mobile phone. The counsel says that they have the photographs and the messages sent by him and custodial interrogation is necessary. The State counsel also states that Section 66-A of the IT Act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and since the case was covered under Section 67-A of the IT Act, therefore, those Sections were added.
4. The Whatsapp messages and the obscene photographs which were sent by the petitioner were shown during the course of arguments. The authority cited by the petitioner is not applicable as he was never released on bail by any Court. The police is to recover the phone and custodial interrogation would be necessary. It is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
5. The petition is dismissed.
