Delhi High Court
Siddhant Sharma vs State (Govt Of Nct ) Delhi on 22 January, 2020
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT O DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Order reserved on: 06.12.2019
Order pronounced on: 22.01.2020
+ BAIL APPLN. 406/2019
SIDDHANT SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Nitin Mehta and
Mr. Pushpender Singh,
Advocates
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT) DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Mr. G.M. Farooqui, APP for
the State with Inspector
Mahesh Kumar, P.S.: DIU/
Outer District
Mr. Rajeev Saxena and Mr.
Rachit Sahney and Mr.
Manish Khurana, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI
JUDGMENT
BRIJESH SETHI, J
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of an anticipatory bail
application filed on behalf of the petitioner Siddhant Sharma under
section 438 Cr.P.C. r/w. section 482 CrPC in FIR No. 146/18 u/s. 67
of the Information Technology Act, 2000, PS Rani Bagh.
2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail
on the ground that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in the present FIR. The present FIR is the result of
matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and his wife, who has
not only filed the present complaint on the false and frivolous
grounds but has also filed another complaint u/s. 498-A/406/34 of
IPC which has been registered as FIR No. 0186/18 at PS Rani Bagh
on 09.08.2018.
3. It is submitted that complainant who is wife of the petitioner
has left his company on 05.05.2018 and filed the present complaint
u/s 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in which she claims
that her picture has been used as profile picture on a fake Facebook
profile and there are some other vulgar pictures on the said
Facebook profile. It is submitted that the present complaint is
counter blast to the revelation of relationship of the complainant
with her boyfriend Utkarsh Singh, who were caught red handed by
the petitioner. It is submitted that complainant joined Amity
University in the month of February, 2017 and soon she got in an
extra marital affair with Utkarsh Singh, and started spending time
with him in the university and over the phone and the said
relationship is clear from the call records of mobile no. 9999898969,
which was used by the complainant between April 2018 to June
2018. When petitioner got to know about the extra marital affair of
the complainant, he had brought it to her notice. Initially she did not
accept the said fact but later on accepted her infatuation with said
Utkarsh Singh and convinced the petitioner that she will not speak
with him in future. However, in the month of May, 2018 petitioner
had again caught the complainant speaking with said Utkarsh Singh
late in the night and pursuant to this, the petitioner and complainant
had long arguments and, therafter, the complainant left along with
her parents to her parents' house with all her belongings on
05.05.2018. it is submitted that complainant after leaving the
petitioner is still continuing her illicit relationships with the Utkarsh
Singh and the same is clear from the receipt obtained from the Hotel
booked by the complainant on 06.06.2018 in Noida. Petitioner has
managed to get the receipt and the photo-id of the said Utkarsh
Singh submitted at the time of check in into the hotel.
4. It is submitted that complaints filed by the complainant are in
retaliation to revelation of her extra marital affair and she is using
the resources of her father to pressurize him for divorce. On
20.10.2018 when the petitioner went to meet the concerned IO, he
was asked to settle the matter and divorce the complainant in a
coercive manner, to which he refused and mentioned his willingness
to stay with the complainant as husband and wife, forgiving all her
misdeeds. The petitioner had moved an application u/s 438 CrPC
seeking anticipatory bail before Ld. ASJ, North-West, Rohini
Courts, New Delhi. The said application of the petitioner was
allowed by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 22.12.2018 and it
was directed that in the event of arrest, petitioner/applicant be
released on bail till 30.01.2019, subject to his joining the
investigation and co-operating with the investigating agency. The
petitioner had further moved an application u/s 438 CrPC seeking
anticipatory bail before Ld. ASJ, North-West, Rohini Courts, New
Delhi. However the said application of the petitioner was dismissed
by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 29.01.2019. The order dated
29.01.2019 itself mentions the fact that the petitioner joined the
investigations and had met the IO on 25.12.2018, 26.12.2018 and
has furnished documents proving his attendance on 26.12.2018 and
28.12.2018, however this was ignored by the Ld. ASJ. It is
submitted that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation as and
when required and in these circumstances, it is prayed that petitioner
be granted anticipatory bail and he be released on bail, in the event
of his arrest.
5. The anticipatory bail application is opposed by the Ld. APP
for the State on the ground that the investigation is still in progress.
The petitioner is not cooperating with the investigating officer. He
has, therefore prayed for dismissal of the bail application.
6. I have considered the rival submissions. Perusal of the FIR
reveals that the same was registered by complainant Ms. Soumya
Tara. She has submitted that she has a matrimonial dispute, due to
which she is staying at her parental house. She has alleged that on
18.05.2018, her husband visited her parental house and forcibly
entered in the bedroom in which she was sleeping and assaulted her
physically and threatened her that he would defame and dishonour
her image publicly and on various social networking platforms. She
alleged that she found a fake account created on facebook in which
her husband has used her picture as profile picture and further
uploaded the same on internet. There are other vulgar pictures
uploaded along with her picture. On the basis of her statement
present FIR bearing No. 146/18 u/s. 67 of the Information
Technology Act, 2000, PS Rani Bagh was registered.
7. During investigation, petitioner gave his own statement that
the phone bearing number 9560983969 belonged to him and the
facebook account registered under his name is logged in through
email address [email protected] which was created on 21st
May, 2018 by him through his Apple Mobile phone which is still
owned and being used by him. On 05th May, 2018 his wife namely
Soumya Tara left the house without explaining or giving any reason
to him and then told him that she wanted divorce, he was, thus,
shocked with this instance and on 22.05.2018 at about 5 PM in the
evening he logged into his facebook account
[email protected] through his Apple Mobile/ I-phone-4 and
uploaded some photographs i.e. demon and an angel dancing
together and an angel wearing a demonic mask. After a few days
when he logged into that account, he noticed that the profile picture
was edited and instead of the angel it was his wife's photo with the
mask. He, however, submitted that he recently came to know that
his wife had logged into his facebook account on 22nd May 2018
using her own laptop and the service provider's internet (Vodafone)
9999898969. He has handed over the device I-phone 4S
IME:01359800610624 used for creating and using that facebook ID,
which was seized vide seizure memo dt. 08.05.2019.
8. During investigation, the petitioner produced two laptops one
owned by him and the other one belonging to his younger brother.
The MAC IDs of both the devices have been checked by the
investigating agency and it was found to be different from MAC ID
of the device which was used to upload the edited picture of the
complainant on the alleged Facebook ID. The investigation has
revealed that CDR of mobile of petitioner shows that he created the
Facebook account and he was present at the location i.e. Flat no.
205, Blue Bell, Paramount Flouraville, Sector-137, Noida, UP,
where the said router was installed. There is supplementary
complaint of the complainant dated 09.09.2019 in which she has
alleged that petitioner is continuously harassing the her and is using
her name and picture in his Facebook account (cas.clay.777) to
humiliate her.
9. In view of the above facts appearing on record and the fact
that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for the
purpose of recovery of Laptop vide which he has created the
facebook account of the complainant and which has not been
provided by him to the investigating officer, no grounds for
anticipatory bail are made out. The anticipatory bail application is,
therefore, dismissed.
BRIJESH SETHI, J
JANUARY 22, 2020.
Amit
