Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 875 (ALL)

Angus Stanly v. State of U. P.

2024-03-20

SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

body2024
JUDGMENT : Saurabh Srivastava, J. 1. Heard Ms. Sheeb Jose, Sri Mohd. Kalim and Mrs. Manju Singh, all learned counsels for applicant and Sri P.C.Srivastava, learned AAG assisted by Sri C.L. Chaudhary, learned AGA and Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the records. 2. By means of the instant bail application, applicant is seeking bail in Case Crime No. 14 of 2022, under Section 420 IPC & Section 66C of Information Technology Act & Section 14-B Foreigners Act, Police Station-Cyber Crime, District-Prayagraj during pendency of trial. 3. Learned counsels for the applicant appeared in this matter but leading arguments have been raised by Ms. Sheeb Jose and at the very outset, it has been informed by her that the applicant has not been named in the FIR as well as no strict evidence has been appended or produced by the prosecution against the applicant for implicating in the instant Case Crime no. 14 of 2022 under Section 420 IPC & Section 66C of Information Technology Act & Section 14-B Foreigners Act. 4. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is languishing in jail since 21.07.2022 and till today no prosecution witness has been properly summoned for initiation of the trial before the learned Trial Court, whereas the Passport of the applicant has already been taken into custody by the concerned police station. The entire allegation whatsoever has been put forward against the applicant is on the presumption of committing any offence which is still not proved. Implication of Section 14-B of the Foreigners Act has been based upon the expiry of the visa which was initially extended in favour of the applicant and nothing material has been brought for attraction of Section 420 IPC and Section 66 C of Information Technology Act. 5. Per contra, Sri P.C.Srivastava, learned AAG vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application and submitted that the modus operandi initiated by the applicant was transpired as and when the applicant has been arrested and several SIM cards has been recovered from his possession by the concerned Investigating Officer through which it has been also transpired that one of the phone numbers and Facebook ID mentioned in the narration of FIR belongs to the applicant and the same has been recovered at the time of arrest. During course of investigation, it is also brought to the notice of the Enquiry Officer that the demand of the amount whatsoever narrated in the FIR from the informant by any person but the use of the mobile number was the same one which has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. 6. After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, a precise query has been made before learned AAG that after expiry of the visa and at the same time when the applicant is under incarceration what will be the impact of the overstaying in the country when the visa has not been extended in favour of the applicant and how it is possible? 7. While replying the query made by the Court, learned AAG sought the attention of the Court over the Order 5(2)(b) of the Foreigners Order, 1948 wherein it is specifically mentioned that the foreigner's presence is required in India to answer a criminal charge meaning thereby if any foreigner committed any crime and implicated in any criminal case, the extension of visa shall be dependent upon the charges/trial initiated against that very individual whose visa has already been expired and that foreigner has to stay inside the country till the answer will not be upto the satisfaction of the Court concerned and the same shall be dependent upon the final orders passed by the concerned Court. 8. In the instant matter, applicant has already been arrested on 21.07.2022 and the trial is still in process. 9. Considering the above mentioned facts and circumstances and the period of incarceration as already spent by the applicant, the grounds raised by learned counsel for applicant is not upto the satisfaction of this Court and as such bail application is hereby rejected. However, it is made clear that learned Trial Court is hereby directed to expedite the trial within 12 months.