High CourtsSingle Bench

Satinderjit Singh vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 28 February 2011 · Citation: (2011) 02 P&H CK 0293

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Information Technology Act, 2000 — Section 66 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 406, 408, 420
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-20966 of 2010
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 223 words

Alok Singh, J.—This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 146, dated 19.05.2010, u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66 of Information Technology Act, registered at Police Station Nakodar, District Jalandhar.

2.

This Court vide order dated 23.07.2010 has granted interim bail in favour of the Petitioner. In compliance of order dated 08.02.2011, Director General of Police, Punjab, has filed his affidavit. Perusal of the affidavit reveals that Mr. Pushkar Sandal, Superintendent of Police (D), Jalandhar Rural, has been appointed as Investigating Officer on 15.02.2011. As per the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, even if prosecution story is accepted that Petitioner has wrongfully used password of the complainant company, at the most offence u/s 66C of the Information Technology Act can be said to have been made out against the Petitioner, which is bailable. The Investigating Officer states that Sections 420, 408, 406 IPC have also made against the Petitioner which is non-bailable.

3.

Without expressing any opinion on the point as to whether provisions of the Indian Penal Code can be invoked and even when offence is covered by the Information Technology Act, order dated 23.07.2010 is made absolute. Petitioner shall keep on participating in the investigation as and when he is required to do so by the Investigating Officer.

4.

Petition stand disposed of accordingly.