Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Analysis and Conclusion:The cases revolve around serious criminal and cyber offences under BNS and IT Act, with punishments generally involving imprisonment and fines. The courts are cautious, especially with non-compoundable offences, but have shown willingness to grant bail to petitioners with clean records and insufficient evidence linking them directly to the offences. The legal landscape underscores the importance of the nature of the offence, the evidence, and the petitioners' antecedents in determining punishment and bail eligibility.
In the evolving landscape of Indian criminal law, offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and the Information Technology Act (IT Act), 2000 are increasingly invoked in cyber fraud, impersonation, and threat-related cases. A common query from legal practitioners and accused persons alike is: 318(4),319(2),336(3),338,r/w 3(5) BNS,66-D ITA-2000-2008 punishment for each offence. This question seeks clarity on penalties for these specific provisions, often seen in FIRs involving digital scams, loan recovery threats, and organized cyber crimes.
While exact punishments depend on case facts, judicial discretion, and statutory texts, this post breaks down typical penalties based on standard legal principles. We'll also draw from recent court judgments on bail and compounding, highlighting real-world applications. Note: This is general information, not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.
The BNS, 2023, replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC), with sections like 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), and 338 addressing acts causing hurt, endangering life, and related harms—frequently alleged in cyber fraud contexts involving threats or impersonation. Section 3(5) of the Bombay Police Act (BNS reference here likely denotes Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, but contextually tied to police powers) is read with these, while Section 66D of the IT Act targets cheating by personation using computer resources. Dipin Vidyadharan, S/O.Vidyadharan vs State Of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2002Vishal H. Shah s/o late Hasmukh D. Shah VS State of Jharkhand - 2021 0 Supreme(Jhk) 194
These charges often arise in cases of fake call centers, digital arrests, or forged documents, as seen in multiple bail applications. Courts emphasize that punishments vary but follow statutory maxima.
Legal documents rarely list exact penalties in judgments, focusing instead on procedural aspects. However, standard provisions under BNS and IT Act provide these general ranges:
Key Caveat: These are indicative based on statutes; actual sentences consider aggravating factors like economic impact or repeat offences. Section 66A (related offensive messages) is unconstitutional per Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. SHREYA SINGHAL VS UNION OF INDIA - 2015 2 Supreme 513
Court judgments provide context, often granting bail due to triable-by-magistrate nature and lack of custodial need. Here's how these sections play out:
Bail Trends in Cyber Fraud: In Sitamarhi Cyber Case No. 21/2025, FIR under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, etc., and 66(C), 66(D) IT Act led to bail. The court granted bail considering the nature of allegations and prior similar case outcomes. Raju Kumar vs The State of Bihar - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 4332Premchandra Kumar vs The State of Bihar - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 4337
Non-Compoundable Offences: Offences under 336(3), 338, 340(2) BNS are non-compoundable. The offences of Section 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of BNS, 2023 are not compoundable. Trial court rejected compounding in economic fraud cases. SHAHAL SHA P. vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 5831
Anticipatory Bail Granted: In FIR No. 48/2025, under 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2)(a) BNS and 66D IT Act, court ruled: Custodial investigation is unnecessary when offences are triable by Magistrate. RAEES KHAN S/O SHRI ISHAQ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - 2025 Supreme(RAJ) 389
Refusal in Serious Fraud: Anticipatory bail denied where applicant was a main conspirator forging documents under 66(C), 66(D). Granting anticipatory bail may hamper investigation. Bagdiya Chirag Labhubhai vs State of Gujarat - 2025 Supreme(Guj) 1051
Regular Bail as Rule: In digital arrest cases, bail is a rule and jail is an exception, granted absent money trail. SANKETBHAI ASHVINBHAI DESAI V/s STATE OF GUJARAT - 2025 Supreme(GUJ) 118
Co-Accused Precedents: Bail allowed when co-accused released, emphasizing fair trial. Dharmnarayan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan - 2025 Supreme(Raj) 253IRSAD S/O AASMOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - 2025 Supreme(RAJ) 804
These cases Phani Leyba Nangli D/o Kantli Shilla vs State of Karnataka - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 439937 show courts balancing liberty (Article 21) with investigation needs, often favoring bail for these mid-level offences.
| Offence | Max Imprisonment | Fine | Bail Trends ||---------|------------------|------|-------------|| 318(4) BNS | 2 years | Yes | Often granted Premchandra Kumar vs The State of Bihar - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 4337 || 319(2) BNS | 1 year | Yes | Common in threats RAEES KHAN S/O SHRI ISHAQ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - 2025 Supreme(RAJ) 389 || 336(3) BNS | 3 months | Yes | Non-compoundable SHAHAL SHA P. vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 5831 || 338 BNS | 2 years | Yes | Triable by Magistrate || 66D IT Act | 3 years | Yes | Frequent in cyber scams Vishal H. Shah s/o late Hasmukh D. Shah VS State of Jharkhand - 2021 0 Supreme(Jhk) 194 |
In summary, while documents like Rini Johar VS State of M. P. - 2016 4 Supreme 397 focus on procedures over penalties, these offences carry moderate punishments with high bail success in cooperative cases. Stay informed on BNS shifts from IPC for accurate defense.
Disclaimer: Punishments 'typically' or 'may' apply; actuals vary. This post draws from judgments Dharmnarayan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan - 2025 Supreme(Raj) 253 and principles, not exhaustive advice.
#BNSPunishments, #ITAct66D, #CyberCrimeLaw
Cyber Crimes, Rachakonda, registered for the offences under Sections 316 (2), 319(2), 318(4), 338 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS, 2023”) and Section 66-C , 66-D Information and Technology Act-2000-2008 (for short “IT Act”). ... He further argued that no alleged forgery is committed by the petitioners to attract the offence under Section #HL....
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ( BNS ) 2. ... 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offence and he was falsely implicated in the present crime.
ITA -2000 2008 and Sections 318 (4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNS ’). ... of 2024 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Detective Department, Hyderabad City, registered for the offences under Sections 66-C , 66-D a href="./.. ... Later accused No.2 met his childho....
Sections 66 66(c), 66(D) of the Information and Technology Act. 3. ... 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence and have falsely been implicated in this case. ... Petitioners have got clean antecedent as stated in para 3 of the petition is in custody since 16.04.2025. 5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail. 6.
From perusal of the records, it appears that on the basis of written report of the informant, FIR has been registered under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 111(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 66(c), 66(D) of the I.T. ... The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sitamarhi Cyber Case No. 21 of 2025 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections #HL_ST....
Act, 2000-2008 and Section s 318 (4), 319(2), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the BNS S ’) by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.980 of 2025 on the file of the Cyber Crimes Police Station, Hyderabad registered for the offences punishable under Sections 66-C and 66-D of the Information Technology....
Accused No.2 is involved in Crime No.22/2024 of CID Crime, Gandhinagar Zone Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 342(2), 351(4), 61(2), 113(3)(4)(5)(6)(7) of BNS and Sections 66(C), 66(D) of Informat....
The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.3 in Crime No.941 of 2025 registered for the offences under Sections 318(4) 319(2), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNS, 2023’) and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act ... , 2000-2008 . ... This concern arises from the fact that, despite the alleged offence#HL_E....
Act 2000- 2008 (for short, ‘the IT Act’) and Sections 111(2)(b), 318(4), 319(2), 336(6), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) BNSS ’) by the petitioner/accused seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.21 of 2025 of Cyber Crimes Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section s #HL_START....
Cr.P.C .}, and the offences of Section 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of BNS, 2023 are not compoundable. Likewise, there are restrictions to compound the offence under the IT Act, 2000, as provided under Section 77-A of the IT Act, 2000. ... Charge-sheet has been filed before the learned trial court and the petitioner/accused is facing trial of the case in Criminal Case No. 7137/2024 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for ....
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail applications. The court has discretion to grant bail based on the circumstances of the case, emphasizing fairness and the lengthy trial process. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. Co-accused Gurdev and Vikas have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 24.02.2025 in SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1606/2025. This matter is similar to co-accused case. He further submits that regarding the documents found by the police....
1. Apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No. 48/2025 registered at Police Station Khairthal, District Khairthal-Tijara for the offence(s) under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2)(a) of BNS and Section 66-D of IT Act, the petitioner has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS. The court grants anticipatory bail based on the nature of allegations and the accused's willingness to cooperate, emphasizing that custodial investigation is unnecessary when offences are triable by Magistrate. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor veheme....
[4. 0] The learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has opposed the application on the ground that the present applicant is the main conspirator and he has committed the offence by developing a mobile application under the pretext of Motilal Oswal Finance Group by forging the letter head and tax clearance certificate in the name of Motilal Oswal Group Company and provided online VIP Service group link wherein the applicant added the present complainant as part of criminal conspiracy by providing over the counter membership by forging the certificate in the name of Motilal Oswal Group a....
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....
Anticipatory bail granted when custodial investigation is not necessary and petitioners are willing to cooperate. 1. Apprehending their arrest in connection with FIR No.393/2024 registered at Police Station Pahari, District Deeg for the offence(s) under Sections 303(2), 317(2), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 308(2), 121(1), 132 and 61(2)(b) of BNS and Sections 66D & 67a of IT Act and Section 3 of PDPP Act , the petitioners have preferred these anticipatory bail applications under Section 482 B.N.S.S. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the anticipatory ba....
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
