Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court 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 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

PH High Court Grants Bail in Cyber-Crime Case, Imposes Stringent Conditions: Balancing Liberty and Fair Trial

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh granted bail to the petitioner, Arjun Sain, in a cyber-crime case. The judgment, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, sets a precedent by imposing stringent conditions to ensure a balance between the accused's liberty and the need for a fair trial.

The petitioner, Arjun Sain, had filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), seeking release upon his arrest in FIR No. 0033 dated 03.09.2022, which involved various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Information Technology Act.

In a notable statement from the judgment, the Court emphasized its duty to evaluate the accused's role in the case and other circumstances before deciding bail applications. Quoting the case of Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., the Court affirmed that criminal antecedents alone cannot be the sole basis for rejecting bail.

Considering the serious nature of cyber-crime charges and the petitioner's criminal history, the Court took measures to address potential concerns. However, the judgment asserted that further pre-trial incarceration at this stage would not be justifiable, given that the co-accused were already out on bail.

To safeguard the investigation and prevent any possible tampering with evidence, the Court imposed various stringent conditions. The petitioner was required to furnish a personal bond of Rs. Ten thousand (INR 10,000/-) and a surety of Rs. Twenty-five thousand (INR 25,000/-).

In a pioneering move, the Court also directed the petitioner to keep only one prepaid SIM card and disconnect all other mobile numbers within fifteen days of release from prison. The Court justified this restriction by acknowledging the exponential growth in technology and the need to minimize reliance on surety.

In the judgment, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara emphasized the importance of expedited trials in cyber-crime cases. He warned against a potential upsurge in cyber-thuggee and urged the trial court to make all endeavors to conclude the proceedings promptly.

The judgment received praise for its balanced approach in protecting the rights of the accused while ensuring a fair trial. Legal experts applauded the Court's progressive stance in acknowledging the technological advancements and the need to minimize impersonation in identification techniques.

Date of Decision: 4th August 2023

Arjun Sain vs State of U.T (Chandigarh)   

Latest Legal News