Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
However, certain specific offences under Section 66, such as those involving publishing or transmitting obscene material (Section 66E) or other serious violations, may be non-bailable depending on the context and severity ["HASHIF ALI vs Public Prosecutor - Kerala"], ["INDR00000047726"], ["HASHIF ALI vs Public Prosecutor - Kerala"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Dalip Kumar VS State of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand"]- ["Awadhesh Kumar Parasnath Pathak VS State Of Maharashtra - Bombay"]- ["K. A. Koshy VS State of Kerala, rep. by Public Prosecutor - Crimes (2010)"]- ["K. A. Koshy VS State Of Kerala - 2010 0 Supreme(Ker) 153"]- ["HASHIF ALI vs Public Prosecutor - Kerala"]- ["HASHIF ALI vs Public Prosecutor - Kerala"]- ["INDR00000047726"]- ["HASHIF ALI vs Public Prosecutor - Kerala"]
In the digital age, cyber crimes are on the rise, and Section 66 of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, plays a pivotal role in addressing offenses like hacking. A common question arises: whether Section 66 of Information Technology Act is bailable or not? This blog post dives deep into the legal framework, amendments, judicial precedents, and key factors influencing bail decisions. While we provide general insights based on statutes and case laws, this is not legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your specific case.
Section 66 criminalizes dishonest or fraudulent acts related to computer systems, such as hacking, with punishment up to three years imprisonment, or fine, or both. Originally part of the IT Act, 2000, it was substituted by the IT (Amendment) Act, 2008, effective 2009, broadening its scope to cover cyber offenses causing wrongful loss or gain. K. A. Koshy VS State Of Kerala - 2010 0 Supreme(Ker) 153
The punishment quantum—up to three years—raises bailability questions. Under general criminal law principles, offenses with imprisonment exceeding certain thresholds lean non-bailable, but IT Act specifics add layers.
A game-changer is Section 77B, introduced via the 2008 amendments. It states: offenses under the IT Act punishable with imprisonment up to three years are bailable. Courts have noted this explicitly: It is brought to my notice that the offence under Sections 65 and 66 of the Information Technology Act is bailable in view of Section 77B of the Information Technology Act. DR.K.A.KOSHY AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF KERALA - 2010 Supreme(Online)(KER) 12334 Similarly, the offence alleged under 66(c) and 67 of the Information Technology Act is bailable as per Section 77(B) HASHIF ALI vs Public Prosecutor - 2020 Supreme(Online)(KER) 20982.
However, this bailability applies primarily to standalone IT Act offenses. When Section 66 pairs with non-bailable IPC sections (e.g., 419 cheating by personation, 420 cheating), courts treat it cautiously. K. A. Koshy VS State Of Kerala - 2010 0 Supreme(Ker) 153K. A. Koshy VS State of Kerala, rep. by Public Prosecutor - Crimes (2010)
Courts emphasize: offenses up to three years are bailable unless overridden. Yet, cyber crimes' nature—data breaches, financial loss—prompts scrutiny. Ivan Kabonge S/o Serdic Dama vs State Of Karnataka - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 37587 Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 r/w Section 34 of IPC
Indian courts balance personal liberty with investigation needs. Key cases illustrate:
Other rulings reinforce: even if bailable, ongoing probes in human trafficking or money laundering with Section 66-D/66-F justify denial. BONGU MURALI vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH - 2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 13422
Bail under Section 66 isn't automatic. Courts evaluate:1. Prima Facie Case: Evidence of hacking or damage? Serious harm tilts against bail. Himanshu Kumar VS State NCT Of Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 9772. Accused Conduct: Cooperation, no flight risk? Favorable. Surrender passport if needed. DR.K.A.KOSHY AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF KERALA - 2010 Supreme(Online)(KER) 123343. Investigation Stage: Complete? Bail likely. Ongoing? Denial common. Sumantra Gupta, S/o Shri Shaibal Gupta VS State of Sikkim - 2019 0 Supreme(Sikk) 314. Public Interest: Data theft or national security? Caution prevails. K. Divya VS Inspector of Police, Othakadai Police Station - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 3155 whether the offence under Section 66 F... can be applied5. Linked Charges: IPC non-bailable overrides Section 77B. Ankur Khanna (Presently in Jail) Through His Next Friend Ravi Thakurdas Chawla VS Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement - 2022 Supreme(Bom) 693 offence under Section 66-D... is not schedule offence.
In cyber cases, evidence like digital logs is tamper-prone, influencing decisions. Ekta Kapoor VS State of M. P. - 2020 Supreme(MP) 1206
If charged under Section 66:- Seek Anticipatory Bail Early: Via Section 438 CrPC, especially if standalone. DR.K.A.KOSHY AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF KERALA - 2010 Supreme(Online)(KER) 12334- Demonstrate Cooperation: Join probe, avoid absconding.- Highlight Section 77B: Argue bailability if no grave IPC links.- Prepare for Discretion: Courts deny if likelihood of tampering exists. BIKRAM CHHOTARAY VS STATE OF ODISHA - 2017 0 Supreme(Ori) 1476
Recent trends show leniency in minor hacks but stringency in financial cyber frauds. BASHYAM VENKATESHWARLU vs THE STATE OF A.P. - 2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 20128
| Aspect | Status ||--------|--------|| Standalone Section 66 | Generally bailable (Section 77B) || With Non-Bailable IPC | Non-bailable in practice || Bail Factors | Investigation, conduct, gravity || Common Outcome | Discretionary; caution in cyber crimes |
Offenses under Section 66 are generally bailable due to Section 77B, but judicial discretion often renders them non-bailable when severity or IPC links arise. Always assess case facts.
Disclaimer: This post offers general information based on statutes and precedents like K. A. Koshy VS State Of Kerala - 2010 0 Supreme(Ker) 153, BIKRAM CHHOTARAY VS STATE OF ODISHA - 2017 0 Supreme(Ori) 1476, DR.K.A.KOSHY AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF KERALA - 2010 Supreme(Online)(KER) 12334. Laws evolve; seek professional legal counsel for advice tailored to your situation.
Stay informed on cyber laws to navigate digital risks wisely.
#ITActSection66, #CyberLawBail, #Section77B
It is the submission of the learned counsel that the offences under the Information Technology Act are compoundable and bailable. He would invite attention of this Court to Section 77A and 77B of the Act of 2000. ... He would submit that Section 43 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 read with Section 66 is sufficient to take care of the acts alleged against the present appli....
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 ... When such Act is done dishonestly and fraudulently it would attract the punishment under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, such Act being held to b....
Act, 1946 and in view of the provision of Section 66 of Information Technology Act, it is necessary to reduce the period of sentence from 5 years to 3 years. ... 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 r/w Section 34 of IPC and accused No.1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. ... Thus, accused Nos.1 and 2 had committed offences punishable under Section....
The counsel submitted that, the other offences alleged are bailable. The counsel submitted that, the offence alleged under 66(c) and 67 of the Information Technology Act is bailable as per Section 77(B) of the Information Technology Act. ... The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section#HL_END....
-C, 66-D and 66-F of Information Technology Act, 2000. ... However, the learned counsel during further hearing of the bail petition, after noticing the correct principles of law, admits that by virtue of Act 10 of 2009 which is the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 the principal Act, namely, the Information Technology Act, 2000 was amended and at ... ....
-C, 66-D and 66-F of Information Technology Act, 2000. ... However, the learned counsel during further hearing of the bail petition, after noticing the correct principles of law, admits that by virtue of Act 10 of 2009 which is the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 the principal Act, namely, the Information Technology Act, 2000 was amended and at ... ....
Ingredients under Section 466 IPC compared with Section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000, are entirely different. ... The point arises for consideration before this Court is that the ingredients in both Section 420 IPC and Section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000 are the same. ... a similar manner falls within the purview of Section 43 of the #HL_STA....
It is brought to my notice that the offence under Sections 65 and 66 of the Information Technology Act is bailable in view of Section 77B of the Information Technology Act. Section 77B was introduced by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008 (Act 10 of 2009). ... Section 66 of the Informati....
It is brought to my notice that the offence under Sections 65 and 66 of the Information Technology Act is bailable in view of Section 77B of the Information Technology Act. Section 77 B was introduced by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008 (Act 10 of 2009). ... Section 66 of the Informat....
It is brought to my notice that the offence under Sections 65 and 66 of the Information Technology Act is bailable in view of Section 77B of the Information Technology Act. Section 77 B was introduced by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008 (Act 10 of 2009). ... Section 66 of the Informat....
Submission is offence under Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act is not schedule offence. Mr. Nadarni, therefore, submitted that it is clear that only special law shall apply for the offences and not the general law and hence the offences of the IPC cannot be attracted to the present matter.
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. 14. after hearing both the sides, it is clear that the petitioner is a first-time offender. Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form. The only non-bailable section invoked against the petitioner is Sec....
Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is struck down in its entirety being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not saved under Article 19(2).
Now coming to the question as to whether the provisions of Section 67 of Information Technology Act are attracted or not, it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000, which runs as under:- Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form.
The next issue to be gone into is as to whether the offence under Section 66 F of the Information Technology Act, 2000, can be applied in the present case.
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
