Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme 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