Image
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Case Summaries
  • Services
    • Workshops
  • About
    • About Us
    • Objectives
    • Our Achievements
    • My Cyber Crime Story
    • Team

Technology. Law. Policy. You

For all things cyber

Sukumar Jain v. Union of India

The Cyber Blog IndiaFebruary 20, 2022Case Summary

Bail application in a case involving the alteration of the amount available in Post Office accounts

Sukumar Jain v. Union of India
(2021) 166 ACC 192
In the High Court of Allahabad
B.A. 5883/2020
Before Justice Alok Mathur
Decided on February 12, 2021

Relevancy of the case: Bail application in a case involving the alteration of the amount available in Post Office accounts

Statutes and Provisions Involved

  • The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66)
  • The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 120B, 201, 204, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A)
  • The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 82)
  • The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Section 13)

Relevant Facts of the Case

  • The postal department had outsourced the process of digitalisation of the entire records of the Head Post Office, Lalitpur, to a third party.
  • The accused installed a data entry module in the Account Branch and other systems at the Head Post Office.
  • Using this module, the accused conspired with other co-accused persons and altered the amount available in accounts.
  • Further, the accused persons facilitated the withdrawal of large amounts of money with the help of National Savings Agents.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

  • The petitioner’s counsel argued that there was a misuse of the passwords given to the third-party company during the digitalisation process. They have misused IDs and passwords, and hence, the applicant is not responsible.
  • The counsel further submitted that the petitioner is 65 years old. Also, CBI filed the chargesheet four years after his retirement.
  • Moreover, the counsel argued on the requirement of a prior sanction for prosecution under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
  • The respondent’s counsel opposed the anticipatory bail application. He submitted that the involvement of the petitioner is apparent in the charge sheet. The trial court has only issued a non-bailable warrant due to the non-appearance of the accused.

Opinion of the Bench

  • The respondent’s counsel has not been able to point out any substantial grounds for not granting bail to the applicant.

Final Decision

  • The bench allowed the bail application with conditions.

Marc Pereira, an undergraduate student at Rizvi Law College, Mumbai, prepared this case summary during his internship with The Cyber Blog India in January/February 2022.

Tags:altering account info, bail application, CBI, chargesheet, CrPC, data misuse, digitalization, IPC, IT ACT, marc-pereira, money, non-bailable warrant, password, Section 66 IT Act 2000, stealing money, Sukumar Jain, Union of India

Our recent posts

  • The Online Storm over Mohak Mangal v. ANI
  • Rule 14: The Digital Iron Curtain on Cross-Border Data Transfers
  • AI and the Grey Areas of Indian Copyright Law
  • When what appears to be Cyber Squatting is not exactly Cyber Squatting
  • Analysing Smart Contracts on the Contours of Conventional Elements of a Contract

Reach out to us for assistance!

Email: contact@cyberblogindia.in
WhatsApp: +91 9340337396

In case of an offence against a woman/girl, for the sake of comfort, the victim/survivor may put forth a special request to get in touch with a female team member to assist her.

Guest Post Guidelines are available here. 

  • Home
  • Blog
  • Case Summaries
  • Services
    • Workshops
  • About
    • About Us
    • Objectives
    • Our Achievements
    • My Cyber Crime Story
    • Team