Aamirudh Daullah vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Musabani P.S. Case No.23 of

2018 (G.R. No. 283 of 2018) registered under sections 354/509/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 66(A) (a) (b) (c)/66(D)/67/67(A)

of I.T. Act.

Heard the parties.

Perusal of the record reveals that this is the second journey of the petitioner for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail. Earlier he filed A.B.A. No. 7177

of 2018 but on 06.03.2019, the petitioner prayed for withdrawal of his anticipatory bail application and accordingly the said A.B.A. No. 7177 of 2018

was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after withdrawal of A.B.A. No. 7177 of 2018, proclamation of the process under section 82 was

made and after proclamation of the process under section 82 Cr.P.C. as the petitioner did not appear before the trial court and continued evading his

arrest, hence the process under section 83 Cr.P.C. was also issued by the trial court against the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed Cr.M.P. No.

1392 of 2019 for quashing the orders dated 28.03.2019 and 07.06.2019 whereby the proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. and order of attachment

under section 83 Cr.P.C. has respectively been issued by the court of A.C.J.M., Ghatshila in G.R. No. 283 of 2018. Vide order dated 09.08.2019 in

Cr.M.P. No. 1392 of 2019, a coordinate Bench of this Court being of the view that a reasonable opportunity should have been provided to the

petitioner to appear in the court below considering the fact that another coordinate Bench of this Court ordered of no coercive steps till 06.03.2019 in

A.B.A. No. 7177 of 2018, set aside the said two orders of the trial court but categorically observed that the petitioner shall appear before the court

below which shall, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties, pass necessary orders in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the

petitioner has not appeared before the trial court and thus not complied the order of the coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 1392 of 2019

though five months has elapsed from the date of the said order.

It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner used to work with the informant and initially, he used to threaten the

informant but subsequently he hacked the Google account of the informant and took out the pictures from the Google Drive and after creating one

fake Facebook account, threatened to publish sexually explicit photos and thereafter transmitted materials containing sexually explicit acts to the

fiancé of the informant and the reason for the petitioner committing such act is that he was forcing the informant to go to him at Mumbai. It is also

alleged that the petitioner is harassing the informant and her fiancé from internet numbers and the petitioner has also hacked the e-mail I.D. of the

elder sister of the informant and also threatening the father and mother of the informant through internet numbers. It is further submitted that the

allegation against the petitioner is false and the petitioner was in love with the informant but as the petitioner did not fulfill the demands of the

informant, hence the informant has instituted this false case. It is next submitted that police during the investigation of the case searched the house of

the petitioner and seized one laptop of the petitioner. It is then submitted that no offence punishable under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is

made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer for grant of privilege of

anticipatory bail. It is specifically submitted by them drawing attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no.2 that in

A.B.A. No. 7177 of 2018, when after hearing the parties, this Court disclosed its mind to reject the prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner, the

petitioner sought to withdraw the anticipatory bail application and accordingly the said petition was dismissed and thereafter proclamation of the

process under section 82 Cr.P.C. was made. It is further submitted that the petitioner succeeded in duping the police on several occasions to evade his

arrest and the petitioner who is an expert in software after hacking the Google Drive, Google Account and e-mail I.D. has sent the photos to the

opposite party no.2 and to various people and families including the family where the marriage of the opposite party no.2 was to be solemnized due to

which the solemnization of marriage of the opposite party no.2 was cancelled but the petitioner did not stop there and thereafter continued harassing

the informant from different telephone numbers and mobile numbers including internet numbers, the details of which has been mentioned in the F.I.R.

itself. It is further submitted that the petitioner also hacked the e-mail I.D. of the opposite party no.2 and sent objectionable e-mails to different people

and continued harassing her family. It is next submitted that the petitioner is a person having contacts with the criminals and though police has raided

his house but he is managing to avoid his arrest by fleeing away. It is then submitted that it is an admitted fact that police seized the laptop of the

petitioner who has committed serious offence and he is continuously threatening the opposite party no.2 and her family members till date. It is further

submitted that his custodial interrogation is highly essential during the investigation of the case, keeping in view the nature of allegation against him.

Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and his conduct in not cooperating with the trial and as he has not cared to comply

the order of a coordinate Bench of this Court, passed in Cr.M.P. No. 1392 of 2019 to appear before the trial court though about five months has

already elapsed from the date of the said order as well as the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case and also

the fact that the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above

named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner

is rejected.