Amandeep Kaur v. State of Haryana
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
Crl. Misc. M-34500/2013
Before Justice Ritu Bahri
Decided on November 6, 2013

Relevancy of the case: Anticipatory bail application for offences involving Sections 66E, 67, and 67A

Statutes & Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66E, 67, 67A)
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 438)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• A complaint was filed by Rohit Sharma on 27-07-2013 under Sections 66E, 67, and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. A parcel which contained a memory card and some papers was received by the complainant through the post. Only after he played the CD, he came to know that his wife (the petitioner) has been indulged in the trade of flesh. They there were several other girls involved in the same and in the video, a man named Karnail Singh was with her.
• The anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner on 05-10-2013 was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge as the offence committed by the petitioner was grave. The petitioner filed an appeal in the Supreme Court for granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• An inquiry was made after receiving the complaint by the Deputy Superintendent of Police wherein it was found that the film ‘Aman Gagga Kaand’ has been uploaded on the internet due to which the petitioner is punishable under Section 67, 66E, and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
• The investigation team went to Karnail Singh’s house and inquired his wife. It was found that there were multiple conversations of Karnail Singh and the petitioner through phone calls.
• Further, the memory card and CD which were submitted by the complainant were sent to CFSL for comparison on 24-09-2013. As per the Senior Scientific Officer (Annexure R1), the report from CFSL stated that the CD which is marked as exhibit C/1 and the SD card which is marked as exhibit SD/1 had the similar recording with a duration of 08:58 minutes, and in time durations 05:42 to 06:47 , there is a missing video which was not found to be intentional editing.

Opinion of the Bench

• Since the investigation was in the last phase, the petitioner should be granted interim bail.

Final Decision

• The court held that the interim bail is granted to the petitioner till the challan is presented.
• Hence, the petition was disposed of.

This case summary has been prepared by Afsana Khan, an undergraduate student at Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad, during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in June/July 2020.