CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Courts Can Exercise Jurisdiction for Transit Anticipatory Bail Outside Territorial Jurisdiction: Punjab and Haryana High Court in Cyber Fraud Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted transit anticipatory bail to Sanesh Kumar, the petitioner in a cyber fraud case registered in Hyderabad. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, while delivering the judgment in CRM-M-901 of 2024, stated, "the Court of Sessions or the High Court, as the case may be, can exercise jurisdiction and entertain a plea for limited anticipatory bail/transit bail by way of interim protection for a limited duration even if the FIR has not been filed within its territorial jurisdiction."

The Court dealt with the issue of transit anticipatory bail in a case involving cybercrime. The FIR, filed at the Cyber Crime Police Station in Hyderabad, alleged offenses under Sections 66(C), 66(D) of the IT Act, and 419, 420 of the IPC.

Sanesh Kumar, the petitioner, sought transit anticipatory bail for 15 days to join the investigation in Hyderabad and to approach the competent court there for anticipatory bail. The FIR accused him of involvement in a cyber fraud case, duping the complainant of around Rs. 17,73,688 through a Telegram-based scam.

 

Jurisdiction for Transit Anticipatory Bail: Citing the precedent in "Priya Indoria Versus State of Karnataka & others," the Court observed that jurisdictional constraints should not impede access to justice. It underscored the principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Analysis of Cyber Crime Investigation: The Court acknowledged the complexities in jurisdiction for cybercrime cases. It emphasized the necessity for courts to be flexible in handling cases spanning multiple jurisdictions.

Order for Transit Bail: Concluding the judgment, Justice Bedi granted transit anticipatory bail to the petitioner for 15 days, directing him to approach the competent court in Hyderabad. It was clarified that this order should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.

Decision: The Court granted transit anticipatory bail to Sanesh Kumar, allowing him to approach the competent court in Hyderabad for further relief.

Date of Decided: 15.03.2024

Sanesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Others

Latest Legal News