Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1839 (HP)

Sanjida @ Sanju v. State of H. P.

2015-12-10

P.S.RANA

body2015
Order : P.S. Rana, J. Present petition is filed under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail relating to FIR No. 380 of 2015 dated 1.11.2015 registered under Sections 66-E and 67-A of the Information and Technology Act 2000 in Police Station Paonta Sahib District Sirmour H.P. 2. It is pleaded that petitioner has not committed any offence and she has been falsely implicated in the present case as counter blast to earlier FIR lodged by present petitioner. It is further pleaded that petitioner will abide by conditions imposed by the Court and will join investigation of the case. Prayer for acceptance of bail application is sought. 3. Per contra police report filed. As per police report FIR No. 380 of 2015 dated 1.11.2015 registered under Sections 66-E and 67-A of the Information and Technology Act 2000 in Police Station Paonta Sahib District Sirmour H.P. There is recital in the police report that complainant is residing in New Colony Dhaulakuan Tehsil Paonta Sahib District Sirmour H.P. with her husband and three children. There is further recital in the police report that petitioner Sanjida is her neighbour and complainant and petitioner are known to each other for the last fifteen years. There is further recital in the police report that Kabiroodeen used to visit in the residential house of petitioner Sanjida and there is further recital in the police report that petitioner Sanjida and Kabiroodeen have body relation with each other. There is further recital in the police report that complainant also became familiar with Kabiroodeen and body relation of complainant also developed with Kabiroodeen. There is further recital in the police report that petitioner fixed mobile cameras and prepared MMS video of relations of complainant and Kabiroodeen. There is further recital in the police report that petitioner tried to blackmail the complainant and when complainant did not accepted the request of the petitioner thereafter petitioner distributed CD of MMS in general public. Case was registered against petitioner and mobile of the complainant and petitioner took into possession vide seizure memos and statements of witnesses recorded. Two CDs were checked. Both mobiles and CDs have been sent for Forensic Science Laboratory Junga for chemical examination. There is further recital in the police report that petitioner prepared CD of absurd photo of complainant and Kabiroodeen and thereafter distributed in the general public. Two CDs were checked. Both mobiles and CDs have been sent for Forensic Science Laboratory Junga for chemical examination. There is further recital in the police report that petitioner prepared CD of absurd photo of complainant and Kabiroodeen and thereafter distributed in the general public. Prayer for rejection of bail application sought. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and also perused the record carefully. 5. Following points arise for determination in this bail application:- Point No. 1 Whether bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of bail application? Point No. 2 Final Order. Findings on Point No.1 with reasons: 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and did not commit offence under Sections 66-E and 67-A of the Information Technology Act 2000 cannot be decided at this stage. Same fact will be decided when case shall be disposed of on merits by learned trial Court after giving due opportunities to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 7. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that any condition imposed by Court will be binding upon the petitioner and on this ground anticipatory bail be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons mentioned hereinafter. At the time of granting bail following factors are considered. (i) Nature and seriousness of offence (ii) The character of the evidence (iii) Circumstances which are peculiar to the accused (iv) Possibility of the presence of the accused at the trial or investigation (v) Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with (vi) The larger interests of the public or the State. See AIR 1978 SC 179 titled Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration). Also see AIR 1962 SC 253 titled The State Vs. Captain Jagjit Singh. 8. Allegations against the petitioner are very heinous and grave in nature under Information and Technology Act 2000 relating to violation of privacy and relating to publishing material containing sexual act in electronic form. Section 77-B of the Information and Technology Act 2000 mentioned that punishment with imprisonment of three years and above shall be cognizable offence. Captain Jagjit Singh. 8. Allegations against the petitioner are very heinous and grave in nature under Information and Technology Act 2000 relating to violation of privacy and relating to publishing material containing sexual act in electronic form. Section 77-B of the Information and Technology Act 2000 mentioned that punishment with imprisonment of three years and above shall be cognizable offence. Punishment of Section 67-A of the Information and Technology Act 2000 is five years and also fine which may extend to ten lacs on first conviction and in the event of second or subsequent conviction seven years imprisonment and fine Rs. Ten lacs. 9. In view of the fact that investigation is in initial stage in the present case Court is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Court is also of the opinion that if the anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner at this stage then interest of State and general public will be adversely affected and Court is of the opinion that if the anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner at this stage then investigation of case will also be adversely affected. 10. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State that there are heinous allegations against the petitioner under Information and technology Act 2000 and if anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner then petitioner will induce and threat the prosecution witnesses is accepted for reasons hereinafter mentioned. There is apprehension in the mind of Court that petitioner will induce or threat the prosecution witnesses if anticipatory bail is granted at this stage of case. In view of the fact that investigation is in the initial state of the case and in view of the fact that investigation report under Section 173 code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is not filed in the Court as of today it is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail at this stage of initial investigation. Point No.1 is answered in negative against the petitioner. Point No. 2 (Final Order): 11. In view of the findings upon point No.1 above anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected. Point No.1 is answered in negative against the petitioner. Point No. 2 (Final Order): 11. In view of the findings upon point No.1 above anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected. Observations made in this order will not affect the merits of case in any manner and will strictly confine for the disposal of this bail application filed under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Petition is disposed of. All pending application(s) if any also disposed of.