Hardeep v. State
In the High Court of Delhi
Crl.M.C. 4774/2022 & Crl.M.A. 19237/2022
Before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Decided on November 22, 2022

Relevancy of the case: Bail application in a case involving the facilitation of cheating in an exam through screen-sharing software

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 420, 120B)
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 482)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The accused aided the co-accused during the online recruitment examination of the armed forces by installing a screen-sharing software called Ammyy Admin Software on the candidate’s computer on the promise of a payment of ₹15,000. The police raided the test centre and further apprehended the co-accused.
• The police seized the mobiles and laptops of the accused persons and found incriminating details such as conversations regarding the examination centres, payment, and other relevant information.
• The accused sought the quashing of the FIR filed against him.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates 

• The petitioner’s counsel contended that, above all, this was a case of false implication on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The counsel further stated that he was going to the library when he was apprehended. He relied on the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1999) and subsequently argued that there was no evidence on record.

Opinion of the Bench

• The court was of the opinion that the mere fact that the accused was charged based on circumstantial evidence does not, prima facie, mean that the charges in the FIR are absurd.

Final Decision

• The bench dismissed the petition.

Kanika Verma, an undergraduate student at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, prepared this case summary during her association with The Cyber Blog India in January 2023.