Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Analysis and ConclusionIT Act 66C/67 are specialized for electronic identity theft/obscenity, often supplanting broader BNS cheating/fraud provisions (likely 75(1)(iii)/78(2) as sub-clauses for dishonest acts/hurt); courts quash duplicate BNS/IPC charges to avoid overlap, e.g., Section 43... read with Section 66 is sufficient... no offences... under Sections 120B, 201, 420... IPC are made out. Post-BNS repeal of IPC (Section 358), IT Act retains primacy in cyber matters. ["Awadhesh Kumar Parasnath Pathak VS State Of Maharashtra - Bombay"] ["Dalip Kumar VS State of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand"] ["JITENDRA JAIN S/O SHRI MANAKCHAND JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"] ["Arshdeep Singh alias Arsh VS State of Punjab - Punjab and Haryana"]
In today's digital era, cybercrimes are on the rise, blending traditional penal provisions with technology-specific laws. A common legal query revolves around section 75(1)(iii), 78(2) of BNS, 2023 and section 66C and 67 of the Information Technology Act. These sections address serious issues like identity theft, digital cheating, and transmission of obscene material, often invoked in cases of online fraud, impersonation, and privacy violations. Understanding them is crucial for individuals, businesses, and legal professionals navigating India's evolving cyber legal landscape.
This post breaks down these provisions, their interplay, and insights from recent court rulings, particularly on bail applications. Note: This is general information based on legal precedents and statutes. It is not legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for specific cases.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC), modernizing criminal law. Sections 75(1)(iii) and 78(2) typically arise in contexts involving assault, force, or abetment linked to digital acts, often combined with IT Act offenses.
This subclause falls under provisions dealing with hurt or assault using dangerous means or in specific circumstances. When paired with cyber elements, it may apply to cases where digital impersonation leads to physical or psychological harm. Courts have scrutinized its application in fraud scenarios lacking direct violence.
This addresses abetment or aiding offenses, particularly in group cyber frauds. It emphasizes secondary liability, common in scams involving multiple accused sharing account details or facilitating crimes. ANAND S/O PRAKASH SADASHIV JADHAV V/s STATE OF GUJARAT - 2025 Supreme(GUJ) 329
The Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) complements BNS with tech-focused penalties:
Section 66C (Identity Theft): Punishes fraudulent use of another's electronic signature, password, or unique ID feature. Imprisonment up to 3 years and fine up to ₹1 lakh. Often seen in 'digital arrest' scams where fraudsters pose as officials. PRAVINBHAI KESHARBHAI CHAUDHARI V/s STATE OF GUJARAT - 2025 Supreme(GUJ) 91
Section 67 (Obscene Material): Targets publishing or transmitting obscene content electronically. First conviction: up to 3 years imprisonment and ₹5 lakh fine; repeat: up to 5 years and ₹10 lakh. Linked to blackmail or extortion via morphed images. Mr. Giddela Naveen vs The State of Telangana through SHO Bachannapet Police Station Bachannapet Mandal Jangaon Distr - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 1467
These sections frequently overlap in FIRs for cyber frauds like impersonation as police/CID, investment scams, or sharing victim data with gangs. SANKETBHAI ASHVINBHAI DESAI V/s STATE OF GUJARAT - 2025 Supreme(GUJ) 118
Cyber fraud cases under these sections often involve 'digital arrests'—scammers impersonate authorities, extract details, and dupe victims. Prosecution alleges offenses under BNS (e.g., cheating under Section 316, forgery under 318) read with IT Act 66C/D. However, courts stress evidence requirements.
In one case, an accused faced charges under BNS Sections 340(2), 336(3), 336(2), 319(2), 318(2), 308(2), 204, 61 and IT Act 66C, 66D for alleged kingpin role in impersonation scams. The court noted, Learned APP appearing on behalf... but granted bail, highlighting no prior antecedents and lack of money trail. ANAND S/O PRAKASH SADASHIV JADHAV V/s STATE OF GUJARAT - 2025 Supreme(GUJ) 329
Similarly, in a fraud involving ₹1.86 crores via fake schemes, charges under BNS 316(5), 319(2), 318(4), 61(2) and IT Act 66C, 66D were filed. The applicant, not named in FIR, secured bail as charge-sheet was filed and no further recovery needed. PRAVINBHAI KESHARBHAI CHAUDHARI V/s STATE OF GUJARAT - 2025 Supreme(GUJ) 91
Section 67 often pairs with BNS sexual assault provisions (e.g., 78(2) abetment) in threats to circulate obscene videos. A bail plea under CrPC 439 (now BNSS equivalent) succeeded where no obscene material was recovered: The prosecution failed to recover any obscene videos from the petitioner’s possession. Courts found no tampering risk post-investigation. FIRASAT KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - 2025 Supreme(RAJ) 437
Recent rulings consistently uphold 'bail is the rule and jail is the exception', rooted in Article 21's personal liberty. Factors considered:- Nature and gravity of accusations- Accused's role and antecedents- Investigation status (e.g., charge-sheet filed)- Risk of evidence tampering or absconding
Key Principles from Cases:- No Dishonest Intent: Absence of mens rea defeats BNS cheating/fraud charges. In call recording disputes, courts quashed cognizable offenses under IT Act 72 due to lawful contracts and no crime proceeds under PMLA. Sanjay Pandey vs Directorate of Enforcement- Preliminary Enquiry for Teachers: Though tangential, BNS 118(1) cases stress enquiries before prosecuting educators, mirroring caution in cyber probes. Sibin S.V S/o Sekharan.K Vs State Of Kerala - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 395- Cyber Fraud Specifics: In 'digital arrest' collusion claims, bail granted if no direct money trail or forged docs. The applicant had not forged documents, had no prior criminal record. SANKETBHAI ASHVINBHAI DESAI V/s STATE OF GUJARAT - 2025 Supreme(GUJ) 118
Courts mandate cooperation with investigations: the petitioners are also directed to co-operate with the Investigating Officer. Mr. Giddela Naveen vs The State of Telangana through SHO Bachannapet Police Station Bachannapet Mandal Jangaon Distr - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 1467
| Factor | Favorable for Bail | Example Citation ||--------|-------------------|------------------|| Prior Record | Clean antecedents | ANAND S/O PRAKASH SADASHIV JADHAV V/s STATE OF GUJARAT - 2025 Supreme(GUJ) 329 || Evidence | No recovery/money trail | PRAVINBHAI KESHARBHAI CHAUDHARI V/s STATE OF GUJARAT - 2025 Supreme(GUJ) 91 || Investigation | Charge-sheet filed | SANKETBHAI ASHVINBHAI DESAI V/s STATE OF GUJARAT - 2025 Supreme(GUJ) 118 || Co-Accused | Already released | FIRASAT KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - 2025 Supreme(RAJ) 437 |
These sections interact with:- Telegraph Act: Privacy breaches in interceptions. Sanjay Pandey vs Directorate of Enforcement- PMLA: No application without crime proceeds.- Copyright Act: Rarely, in digital IP theft. B.N. FIROS vs STATE OF KERALA - 2018 Supreme(Online)(SC) 782
In Official Secrets Act overlaps, convictions under IT Act 66F require strict proof. NISHANT S/O PRADEEP AGRAWAL vs ANTI TERRORIST SQUAD LUCKNOW THR. INVESTIGATING OFFICER UTTAR PRADESH AND 1 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6287
For Accused:- Gather evidence of innocence (e.g., no device recovery).- Emphasize no flight risk.- Seek anticipatory/regular bail early.
For Victims:- Report to cyber cell promptly.- Preserve digital evidence.- Avoid sharing IDs/sensitive data.
Sections 75(1)(iii), 78(2) BNS and 66C, 67 IT Act form a robust framework against cyber threats like identity theft and obscenity. Courts lean towards liberty, granting bail absent strong evidence or risks, as pre-trial detention shouldn't equate to punishment.
Takeaways:- Evidence is King: Lack of recovery often leads to bail. FIRASAT KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - 2025 Supreme(RAJ) 437- Personal Liberty Paramount: Article 21 guides decisions. ANAND S/O PRAKASH SADASHIV JADHAV V/s STATE OF GUJARAT - 2025 Supreme(GUJ) 329- Cooperate in Probes: Builds trust for release.- Stay vigilant online—cyber laws evolve rapidly.
For deeper insights or case-specific guidance, reach out to legal experts. Share your thoughts below!
#CyberLawIndia #BNS2023 #ITAct
special provisions of IT Act prevail over general IPC provisions when the same act is punishable under both - Court ruled that Section ... 66 of IT Act does not encompass deceit required for cheating under IPC - Questions regarding the interplay of IT Act and IPC answered ... Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd.; (2018) 2 SCC 674. ... When such Act is done dishonestly and fraudulently it would attract the punishment under Section 66 of the Information Tech....
be an offence described under Section 43(1)(a)(b)(i) of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 which is also punishable under Section 66 of the Act, therefore, no offences punishable under Sections 120B, 201, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC are made out against the present applicant. ... In a petition before the High Court seeking quashment, he was discharged of the offences under Section 292 and 294 but the prosecution under Section#HL_EN....
as defined by Section 2(k). ... Act has to be read in conjunction with Section 2(k) and Section 17 of the Copyright Act 1957 the rigours that would control the operation of Section 70(1) of the I.T. Act are clearly manifested. 20. ... Act has to be read conjointly with Section 2(k) and Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957 i....
The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act. ... 67B of the Information Technology Act. ... 2. Heard Sri C. Hari Preeth, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State. ... State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 scrupulously and the petitioners are also directed to co-operate with the Investigating Officer and to furnish the requisite....
, 1885 ("Telegraph Act") and Sections 3 & 6 of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("PC Act") at PS - EO-III, CBI, Delhi. ... Since none of the ingredients of the scheduled offences viz., Section 72 IT Act, Section 120B r/w 409 and 420 IPC, Section 13(2) read ....
Section 67 of the I.T. ... Section 67 of I.T. Act provides as follows: - “67. Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form.
The above noted case was registered at the instance of the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 3(5), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) of BNS read with Sections 66-C & 66-D of Information Technology Act’ 2008. ... Section 531 of the said Act. ... Further, it specifically provides in Rule 2(1)(iii) that in the ....
The above noted case was registered at the instance of the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 3(5), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) of BNS read with Sections 66-C & 66-D of Information Technology Act’ 2008. ... Section 531 of the said Act. ... Further, it specifically provides in Rule 2(1)(iii) that in the ....
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 216 – Information Technology act, 2000 – Section ... After hearing both the sides, the trial Court came to conclusion that no charge under Section 66 A I.T.Act can be framed. However, prima facie offences under Sections 67, 67 A and 66C of the I.T. Act were still made out. ... the order was affirmed by the appellate Court in a case arising out of case crime No. 209 of 2016, under #HL_S....
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”). ... iii) The conviction and sentence, imposed upon the appellant, for the offences punishable under #HL_S....
3. Prosecution case is that on 10.02.2025 at about 12:30 p.m., the son of the defacto complainant was summoned by the petitioner. The son of the defacto complainant was studying in 6th standard. It is alleged that the petitioner assaulted the de facto complainant’s son with a cane due to the enmity towards the de facto complainant’s son that he spread the news to the other students about the death of his son in an accident, when the petitioner was driving the vehicle. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. Teachers are the unsung heroes of our society. They shape the mi....
4. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the present application and requested to dismiss the present application for regular bail on the ground that applicant has received money and the accused impersonated themselves as CID officials and this is an offence of digital arrest and in collusion and in connivance of co-accused, cyber fraud has been committed and having received account details from various people and providing same to one chinese gang, many people have been duped and still other accused are on run and yet to be arrested. Therefore, he has requested....
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the prosecution, the petitioner who is aged about 22 years committed forcible sexual assault-rape upon the prosecutrix-‘T’, who is a mature married woman on multiple occasions by threatening her to circulate her obscene videos and photographs on social media platforms. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the prosecutrix- ‘T’ was having mutual relationship with the present petitioner. However, on relations between them turni....
2. The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11191034240154 of 2024 registered with Naranpura Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under Sections 340(2), 336(3), 336(2), 319(2), 318(2), 308(2), 204 and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “ BNS ”) and sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the Information Technology Act. 1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State. 4. Learned APP appearing on behalf....
2. The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11206073240528 of 2024 registered with Vadnagar Smart Police Station, District Mahesana for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 319(2), 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and sections 66-C and 66-D of the Information Technology Act. 1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State. 3. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applican....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
