Sagar v. State of Karnataka
In the High Court of Karnataka
Cr. P. 102543/2017
Before Justice K. Somashekar
Decided on November 28, 2017

Relevancy of the case: Bail application in a case of misappropriation of funds involving Section 65, 66, and 66D of the IT Act, 2000.

Statutes & Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 65, 66, 66D)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 120 B, 403, 406, 408, 420, 464, 477A, 506)
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 156(3), 200, 429)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• A complaint was filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the complainant who was the Managing director of the firm. The offences were registered under Sections 120B, 403, 406, 408, 420, 464, 477A, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 65, 66, and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
• As per the complaint, there were six accused who were employers of the complainant’s firm and another eight who were proprietors of the sham entities formed by the first five accused. The accused were alleged to have revealed fake transactions in the firm of the respondent.
• The petitioner, the accused number 1, who is the accountant of the respondent, filed a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, requesting for bail.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

The petitioners’ counsel:

• The petitioner did not have any role in committing the offences claimed by the complainant of misappropriation of funds and creating fake documents and the petitioner did not commit any offence under the Information Technology Act, 2000. There is no availability of evidence to show that the petitioner was part of the alleged offences. The petitioner has been in the police custody from the date of arrest and belongs to a respectable family, being the sole breadwinner of the family. The petitioner, if given bail, would abide by all the conditions of the bail.

The respondent’s counsel:

• The petitioner has been alleged to play a major role with other accused in making false documents for the misappropriation of a large amount of money. He also argued that if the petitioner is allowed bail then he would destroy the evidence and also would come in the way of prosecution.

Opinion of the Bench

• The complainant has filed a complaint against the petitioner and other accused for misappropriation of complainant’s money, forgery, and cheating. The petitioner was traced during the investigation and hence, he was in the custody of police after that. The court held that there is sufficient substance in the contention seeking bail. The investigation has not been completed, the witness statement and the documents for proving the allegation against the petitioner have also not been secured.

Final Decision

• The court held that petition filed by the petitioner as per Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be allowed.

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.