Law Web: Whether court should deny anticipatory bail to accused if mobile phone by which offence was committed was registered in his name?

Once the mobile phone, which has been used in the commission

of the offence, is registered in the name of the petitioner and the said

number has been issued after the bio-metric verification of KYC of the

petitioner, it is the petitioner, who has to explain as to how the said number

was used for the commission of the offence. Learned counsel for the

petitioner has not denied during the hearing that said mobile number is

being used by the petitioner. Moreover, the said phone is yet to be

recovered. Keeping in view these facts, it is not a case where petitioner

can claim that he is not related to the incident.

Once the recovery of the phone is to be effected, the custodial

interrogation of the petitioner is necessary so as to find out as to whether

petitioner is also involved in any other cases of the similar nature or not.

No ground is made out to allow the petitioner the benefit of pre-arrest bail,

hence the prayer is declined and the petition is dismissed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

(202) CRM No. M-6558 of 2020

Date of Decision : 03.06.2020

Shubham Singh Vs State of Punjab

CORAM : MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

The present petition has been taken for hearing through video

conference due to Covid-19 pandemic.

The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

for the grant of pre-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 6 dated 02.09.2019,

under Section 420 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 66 of I.T. Act,

2000, registered at Police Station Punjab State Cyber Crime Police Station,

SAS Nagar, District Crime Wing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that petitioner has

been unnecessarily roped in the present FIR and the allegations alleged

against him are totally incorrect and false.

Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Gill, learned Deputy Advocate General,

Punjab, who has also joined the proceedings through video conference, has

filed status report of the investigation done so far keeping in view the order

passed by this Court dated 14.02.2020. In the status report, it has been

clearly mentioned in para 4 that the mobile having number-7992006700

from which the complainant received the fake call, is registered in the name

of the petitioner and the said number was issued in favour of the petitioner after bio-metric verification of KYC subscriber i.e. the petitioner. Learned

State counsel argues that once the petitioner is the registered owner of the

said phone, which is in the centre of the controversy, the assertion of the

petitioner that he is not related in any way to the controversy, is incorrect.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the case file very carefully.