HC: If a mobile number is used in commission of an offence, the first liability is of the owner of the number (Read Order)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that if a mobile phone number is used for the commission of an alleged offence, the first in line of liability is the registered owner of that “mobile number”.  The owner cannot shun the liability by simply stating that the phone was not in his possession. A single Judge bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi explicitly made it clear that the registered mobile owner is deemed to be called into question and if he claims the phone to be used by someone else then the onus of proof completely lies upon him.

Facts of the Case

The present petition is filed under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for the grant of pre- arrest bail in respect of an FIR filed under section 420 of IPC read with section 66 of the IT Act, 2000.  The petitioner is the registered owner of a mobile number from which the complainant received a fake call and the number was issued in the favor of the petitioner. Henceforth, the FIR was lodged.

Case of the Petitioner

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had no role to play. It was claimed that the phone was not in the possession of the petitioner and therefore had no knowledge with respect to the fake call which was made to the complainant.

Case of the Respondent

The counsel for the respondent has filed a report of the investigation done so far keeping in view the order passed by the Court dated 14.02.2020. The Counsel submitted that there was a vivid mention in para 4 of this report that the mobile number which the complainant has complained about is registered in the name of the petitioner and is moreover issued in the favor of the petitioner after bio-metric verification of the KYC- subscriber i.e. is the petitioner.

Reasoning of the Court

The bench observed that “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 in the commission of the offence.”  The court also observed that the accused had not specifically denied that he was not using the said mobile number.

Decision of the Court 

However, the court rejected the pre- arrest bail application on the ground that the alleged phone is yet to be recovered hence until then the registered owner’s judicial custody is mandatory for smooth investigation. The court stated “once the recovery of the phone is to be effected, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary so as to find as to whether petitioner is also involved in any other cases of 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.”

Before: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi

Case Title: Shubham Singh v. State of Punjab

Case No. :  CRM-M No. 6558/2020

Read Order @LatestLaws.com