Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 2071
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
GURBIR SINGH, J.
Vaneet Sachdeva – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M-10868 of 2023
Decided On : 12-05-2023
Mr. Varun Chhibba, Advocate; For the Petitioner (in CRM-M-10868-2023).
Mr. Manmeet Singh Bindra, Advocate; For the Petitioner (in CRM-M-20326-2023).
Ms. Himani Arora, AAG, Punjab (in both the cases).
Mr. Harish Sharma, Advocate for the complainant (in both the cases)
Headnote:(A) Information Technology Act, 2000 - Sections 67 and 67-A - Anticipatory bail - Petitioners sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR for transmitting obscene material but allegations against them were found to lack evidentiary support - Petitioners, who asserted prior inquiry found complainant prepared video herself, are directed to join investigation while being granted bail conditions - The lone charge against petitioners does not imply circulation to the general public. (Paras 6, 9, 10, 12, 13)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438 - Anticipatory bail - Criteria for granting anticipatory bail requires consideration of the nature of allegations, necessity for custodial interrogation, and availability of the petitioners for inquiry, which have been satisfied in this instance. (Paras 6, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitions arise from allegations of obscene video transmission involving the complainant and her husband, with claims of the complainant having prepared the video herself according to an earlier inquiry.
Findings of Court:
Petitioners must join the investigation but are granted bail to prevent disruption unless they fail to comply with terms set forth.
Issues: The main issues addressed include the nature of allegations and the appropriateness of anticipatory bail under given circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for balancing allegations with evidentiary support for bail considerations, affirming the decision to grant bail given the nature of the case and facts presented.
Result: Petitioners granted anticipatory bail with specific conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis for anticipatory bail application (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding the nature and transmission of the video (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. conditions for anticipatory bail related to cooperation with investigation (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. conditions of granted anticipatory bail (Para 13) |
| 5. final order and disposal of petitions (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. Gurbir Singh, J.
Vide this common order, two petitions i.e. CRM-M-10868- 2023 and CRM-M-20326-2023 filed by two different persons, shall be disposed of as the FIR involved in both the petitions is the same, arising out of the same occurrence.
2. Prayer in both the afore-stated petitions, filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.103 dated 19.07.2022, under Sections 67 , 67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as - the Act), registered at Police Station Division No.3, Ludhiana.
3. The FIR in question was registered at the instance of one Yashika Sachdeva against her husband Vaneet Sachdeva (petitioner in CRM-M-10868-2023) and Diksha (petitioner in CRM-M-20326-2023).
4. As per the allegations, on 11.05.2022, the complainant received calls and messages on her mobile phone. When she saw the messages, she was shocked to see her obscene videos and objectionable photographs with her husband Vaneet Sachdeva on her Instagram ID by co-accused Diksha, which her husband had made by deceiving her with intention of black-mailing her from the very beginning. When she spoke to the petitioner Diksha, she began hurling abuses and threatening her. Earlier, the complainant had registered a police complaint against her husband and in-laws and owing to the same, the police registered an FIR under Sections 406 , 498-A IPC at Police Station Women Cell, Ludhiana. In the said complaint, the complainant had also mentioned that Diksha was having illicit relations with her husband Vaneet Sachdeva and her husband had given indecent videos and photographs of the complainant to Diksha, who was blackmailing her and threatening her.
5. Learned counsel for both the petitioners have argued that earlier inquiry was conducted before registration of the case. The Inquiry Officer had given finding that the said video was prepared by the complainant herself but after the registration of the FIR, the State changed its stand. Learned counsel for petitioner Vaneet Sachdeva further argued that the petitioners neither published nor transmitted any such video to any person. Learned counsel for petitioner Diksha has argued that the said video was neither published nor transmitted by her and as per the version of the prosecution, it was in the mobile phone of Vaneet Sachdeva from where it was sent. She has been unnecessarily dragged in due to matrimonial litigation between the complainant and Vaneet Sachdeva.
6. It has further been argued that the maximum sentence for imprisonment is five years under Section 67 -A of the Act but no notice was given to the petitioners under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another - Crl.Appeal No.1277 of 2014, decided on 02.07.2014.
7. The respondent-State has already filed Status Report in case of Vaneet Sachdeva and in case of Diksha, the same has been filed today in Court, which is ordered to be taken on record. Learned State counsel and counsel for complainant have submitted that the custodial interrogation of both the petitioners is necessary to recover the mobile phone, from which obscene video of the complainant was sent. It is further submitted that offence is heinous. So, petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail.
8. Learned counsel for both the petitioners have submitted that both the petitioners are ready to hand over their mobile phones to the Investigating Officer as and when they are required.
9. Heard.
10. Although at the time of pre-registration inquiry, the Inq
