Wednesday, 10 June 2020

Whether court should deny anticipatory bail to accused if mobile phone by which offence was committed was registered in his name?

Once the mobile phone, which has been used in the commission
of the offence, is registered in the name of the petitioner and the said
number has been issued after the bio-metric verification of KYC of the
petitioner, it is the petitioner, who has to explain as to how the said number
was used for the commission of the offence. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has not denied during the hearing that said mobile number is
being used by the petitioner. Moreover, the said phone is yet to be
recovered. Keeping in view these facts, it is not a case where petitioner
can claim that he is not related to the incident.
Once the recovery of the phone is to be effected, the custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is necessary so as to find out as to whether
petitioner is also involved in any other cases of the similar nature or not.
No ground is made out to allow the petitioner the benefit of pre-arrest bail,
hence the prayer is declined and the petition is dismissed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(202) CRM No. M-6558 of 2020
Date of Decision : 03.06.2020

Shubham Singh Vs  State of Punjab

CORAM :  MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI


The present petition has been taken for hearing through video
conference due to Covid-19 pandemic.
The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
for the grant of pre-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 6 dated 02.09.2019,
under Section 420 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 66 of I.T. Act,
2000, registered at Police Station Punjab State Cyber Crime Police Station,
SAS Nagar, District Crime Wing.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that petitioner has
been unnecessarily roped in the present FIR and the allegations alleged
against him are totally incorrect and false.
Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Gill, learned Deputy Advocate General,
Punjab, who has also joined the proceedings through video conference, has
filed status report of the investigation done so far keeping in view the order
passed by this Court dated 14.02.2020. In the status report, it has been
clearly mentioned in para 4 that the mobile having number-7992006700
from which the complainant received the fake call, is registered in the name
of the petitioner and the said number was issued in favour of the petitioner after bio-metric verification of KYC subscriber i.e. the petitioner. Learned
State counsel argues that once the petitioner is the registered owner of the
said phone, which is in the centre of the controversy, the assertion of the
petitioner that he is not related in any way to the controversy, is incorrect.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the case file very carefully.
Once the mobile phone, which has been used in the commission
of the offence, is registered in the name of the petitioner and the said
number has been issued after the bio-metric verification of KYC of the
petitioner, it is the petitioner, who has to explain as to how the said number
was used for the commission of the offence. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has not denied during the hearing that said mobile number is
being used by the petitioner. Moreover, the said phone is yet to be
recovered. Keeping in view these facts, it is not a case where petitioner
can claim that he is not related to the incident.
Once the recovery of the phone is to be effected, the custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is necessary so as to find out as to whether
petitioner is also involved in any other cases of the similar nature or not.
No ground is made out to allow the petitioner the benefit of pre-arrest bail,
hence the prayer is declined and the petition is dismissed.
Dismissed.
Nothing mentioned in this order will be taken as an expression
of opinion on the merits of the case.
June 03, 2020 ( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI )

Print Page

No comments:

Post a comment