Narender Yadav vs. State Of Hp

Held

The Court allowed the bail petitions. Regarding the issue of automatic bail due to the non-filing of the challan within 60 days, while the petitioners argued for it based on Section 420 IPC, the Court did not explicitly rule on this specific legal contention as a standalone issue. Instead, the Court focused on the overall circumstances. The Court noted that the State had not substantiated its contention that the petitioners were habitual offenders or had indulged in similar offenses leading to other FIRs. While acknowledging the seriousness of Cyber Crimes, the Court emphasized that guilt or innocence is a matter for the trial court to decide based on evidence. Considering the petitioners' young age (19 years), their period of custody since February 8, 2020, and the fact that they are in judicial custody, the Court found no purpose served by keeping them incarcerated. The Court reasoned that releasing them on bail with stringent conditions would be in the interest of justice and would address the State's apprehensions. The petitioners were ordered to be released on bail, furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1 Lac with two sureties of the same amount each, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan. Additional conditions were imposed, including reporting to their local police stations monthly, attending trial, not tampering with evidence, and not inducing witnesses. The State was granted liberty to approach the Court for cancellation of bail if the petitioners misused it.

Facts

Three petitions were filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail for the petitioners in FIR No. 143 of 2019, registered under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. The petitioners were in custody since February 8, 2020. The complaint alleged that the complainant responded to a Facebook advertisement for a car sale, made payments totaling Rs. 10,500/- for documentation and Rs. 31,550/- for clearance, and then faced demands for GST and further payment. When the complainant refused the final payment, the seller stopped communication, leading to the FIR. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners were involved in this fraud, with one petitioner maintaining the PAYTM account and ATM, and distributing the money among themselves. The petitioners, aged 19, argued they were young, had been in custody for a significant period, no recovery was pending, and the challan was not filed within the statutory period.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering their age, period of custody, and the stage of investigation? 2. Whether the non-filing of the challan within the statutory period of 60 days entitles the petitioners to automatic bail? Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioners are young, 19-year-old boys, not guilty of the alleged offenses. - They have been in custody since February 8, 2020, and no recovery is to be effected. - Keeping them in custody serves no fruitful purpose. - The maximum punishment under Section 420 of the IPC is seven years, and as the challan was not filed within 60 days, they are entitled to automatic bail. - They undertake to furnish securities and abide by all court-imposed conditions. Respondent's (State) Arguments: - The alleged offenses, particularly Cyber Crime, are serious and require no sympathy. - While the petitioners are 19 years old, investigation revealed they have previously indulged in similar Cyber Crimes. - As they belong to Rajasthan, there is a high possibility of them jumping bail and not facing trial. - There is a possibility of the petitioners tampering with the two primary witnesses who are from their villages.