Mahendra Tanaji Kalkutgi v. State of Maharashtra
In the High Court of Bombay
A.B.A. 40/2021
Before Justice S.V. Kotwal
Decided on January 15, 2021

Relevancy of the Case: Anticipatory bail application in a case involving unauthorised changes to computer records at an RTO office for benefits

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 65, 66)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 34, 167, 201, 420, 466, 468, 471)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The assistant RTO at Pune filed an FIR against the accused, alleging that they would change the status of tourist vehicles to private vehicles to avoid paying taxes, fees for transfers, etc.
• The complaint alleged that only the Senior Clerk, one Ghanshyam Dayama, could change the record. The applicant, one of the co-accused, has filed for anticipatory bail.

Prominent Arguments

• The applicant’s counsel submitted that the accused was ready to cooperate with the police. The police had seized the documentary evidence and computer record. Further, only the Senior Clerk had the power to change the record. Therefore, the applicant could not have committed the offences. Moreover, the court had already granted anticipatory bail to Dayama.
• The prosecution argued that the accused was complicit beyond the allegations of the FIR. The police have investigated one of the co-accused and found that the present applicant prepared and furnished duplicate road computer records and smart cards. The court had only granted Dayama anticipatory bail based on his health condition.

Opinion of the Bench

• The court observed that it only granted bail to the co-accused on the basis of his health condition.
• The police’s investigation revealed the accused had committed further malpractices, which were not restricted to the FIR. The police also discovered that he had access to the records of the vehicles.
• The applicant is still in service in the RTO, and the applicant’s custodial interrogation is necessary.

Final Decision

• The court rejected the application.

Arnav Kaman, an undergraduate student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab, prepared this case summary during his internship with The Cyber Blog India in January/February 2024.