Subham v. State of Haryana
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
CRM-M 53569/2021
Before Justice Harisman Sigh Sethi
Decided on January 5, 2022

Relevancy of the case: Bail application in a case filed under Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 67A)
  

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The petitioner’s mother filed a case against the petitioner. She alleged that there was an objectionable video on his phone.
  

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates 

• The petitioner’s counsel argued that the allegations were undoubtedly false and incorrect. Moreover, the investigation agency did not find the objectionable video on the phone. The trial might take time, and thus, the court should grant bail.
• On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel submitted that the investigating agency has presented the challan. They could not recover the video because the petitioner had already deleted it. Subsequently, the police sent the phone to the Forensics Laboratory.

Opinion of the Bench

• The petitioner will not influence the witnesses, and the trial will take a long time. 
• There is no use in keeping the petitioner in jail.
  

Final Decision

• The bench accepted the bail application.

Marc Pereira, an undergraduate student at Rizvi Law College, Mumbai, prepared this case summary during his internship with The Cyber Blog India in January/February 2022.