Surendra v. State of Maharashtra
In the High Court of Bombay
B.A. 294/2022
Before Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Valmiki S. A. Menezes
Decided on January 31, 2023

Relevancy of the Case: Appreciation of digital evidence recovered from a hard disk

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 14, 16, 45A, 79A)
• The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Section 16, 18, 20, 23)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 307, 341, 342, 435, 323, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149, 120B)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The appellant approached the court to appeal against the Session Court’s decision in his bail application.
• As the main accused, the appellant directed the underground Naxalites to oppose the operation of the Surjagad mines and engage in activities to halt the work.
• Armed men in olive green uniforms detained around 100 to 150 trucks belonging to transport companies. Further, they took the drivers to a spot in the forest where they beat the drivers. However, the police could not confirm this incident during its investigation.
• In this present appeal, he has challenged the Session Court’s order before the Bombay High Court.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The appellant’s counsel argued that he was in custody for the last four years. Even after this duration, the trial is at the inception stage. Further, the police did not present letters on the hard disk in line with the procedure under Section 16 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The electronic record of the letters is not a secure electronic record, as per Section 14. Further, the counsel argued that IT Rules, 2021 require the documentation of hash value before cloning. The examination report does not demonstrate if this procedure was followed. The counsel further argued that the opinion of a cyber crime expert is valid only when the procedure for collecting evidence is followed. Moreover, the expert opinion can only come from the officers notified by the government.
• The respondent’s counsel opposed the appeal, stating that the available evidence connected the appellant to the banned organisation C.P.I. (Maoist) and their involvement in organising programs and acts that qualify as acts of terrorism or waging war against the State. Furthermore, he stated that incriminating evidence, including letters, was discovered during the search of the appellant’s residence, establishing his connection with the case.

Opinion of the Bench

• The group of assailants acted with a common intent to create terror and stop the working of mining activity in the area, which would threaten the economic activity.
• The bench considered the material in the hard disk for the bail application despite being subject to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Information Technology Act, 2000.
• Lastly, the learned Sessions Judge rightly arrived at his decision.

Final Decision

• The bench rejected the bail application.

Aditi Sharma, an undergraduate student at NMIMS School of Law, Indore, and Sreekutty R, an undergraduate student at National Law University Odisha, prepared this case summary during their internship with The Cyber Blog India in May/June 2023.