Adarsh Singh v. State of Punjab
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
CRM M-41447/2013
Before Justice Mehinder Singh Sullar
Decided on December 12, 2013

Relevancy of the case: Application for anticipatory bail in a case involving Section 66E and 67 of the IT Act, 2000

Statutes & Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66E, 67)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 354A, 354C, 384)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• Adarsh Singh has sought for an instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case against him and his other co-accused through FIR number 43 registered on 24.04.2013. They are accused of committing the offences punishable under Sections 354A, 354C, 384 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 66E & 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
• The petitioner’s marriage was arranged to be solemnized on November 28, 2013. For extortion purposes, the petitioner sent vulgar texts to the complainant and her family members. He blackmailed her by presenting her objectionable photographs and displaying them on the internet.
•  The investigator obtained information of the complainant’s messages & images posted on the internet during the investigation and acquired warrants issued against petitioner.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

The respondent’s counsel:

• Learned Counsel for the State submitted the affidavit of the IO which stated the details about the number on which the accused had sent offensive messages as well as posted inappropriate photos of the complainant on Facebook. It was also submitted that the accused had not attended the investigation so far.

Opinion of the Bench

• Records of vulgar texts, notes, threats and offensive images were also presented by the learned State counsel. The crux of vulgar messages & images is clear evidence of the fact that the suspect blackmailed the complainant and threatened her with devastating consequences, which amounts to outraging her honour. There is prima facie evidence to support the charges that are attributed to the accused.
• The bench is of the opinion that if anticipatory bail is issued to the accused, the police will be deprived of identifying the source of fraud, cell phone recovery, texts, transcripts, other case information, and fruitful investigation. Consequently, it will negatively impact and disrupt the prosecution’s case which is not legally permissible.

Final Decision

• The petition filed by the petitioner for anticipatory bail was thus rejected as no merits were found.

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