Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha sets aside order by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj in a theft and IT Act case from Gopalganj

In Sharvan Kumar Pandey vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha delivereda 8-page long judgment dated July 20, 2026, wherein, he set aside order by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj. justice Jha concluded: "10....it is clear that only on the basis of evidences as surfaced during any inquiry or trial of an offence, a summon can be issued to any person not being accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused. 11. In the present case, summon was not issued against petitioner on the basis of evidences surfaced during the trial. None of the prosecution witnesses have said anything incriminating during the trial against this petitioner, rather petitioner himself examined as PW-7. Interestingly, on the basis of petition of accused only, otherwise having all opportunity to examine himself on oath under section 315 of the Cr.P.C., this petitioner was summoned as an accused through impugned order, which is a perverse finding contrary to the settled position of law. 12. In view of aforesaid and by taking legal report of Hon’ble Apex Court in Neeraj Kumar’ case (supra), the impugned order dated 13.07.2018 as passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj in connection with T.R. No. 1640/2018 arising out of Hathua P.S. Case No. 106 of 2015, is hereby quashed and set-aside qua petitioner. 13. Accordingly, this quashing petition stands allowed." The respondent no.2 was Surendra Nath Pandey. 

The judgement was passed upon hearing the petition filed for quashing the impugned order dated July 13, 2018 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj in connection with Tr. No. 1640/18 which arose out of Hathua P.S. Case No. 106 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 & 379 of the I.P.C. and Section 66(C) of the Information Technology Act, whereby and whereunder on application of accused Rahul Kumar Jha, lC.J.M. issued summon against the petitioner to face the trial under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The prosecution case was that as per FIR, informant alleged that Rs. 11,00,000/- was withdrawn in between April 30, 2015 to June 22, 2015 by the IRCTC from his Bank Account of State Bank of India, Hathua Branch. It was alleged that informant was a retired teacher and when he came to the Bank and verify his account, then, he came to know that fraud which was committed with his account. On the basis of written report, a First Information Report was lodged with Hathua Police Station. After lodging the FIR, police started investigation and submitted charge-sheet only against co-accused Rahul Kumar Jha for the offences punishable under Sections 420 & 379 of the I.P.C. and section 66(C) of the I.T. Act and investigation was kept pending to verify the I.P. address and on other points. Thereafter, trial court took cognizance only against accused Rahul Kumar Jha for the offences under sections 420 & 379 of the I.P.C. and Section 66(C) of the I.T. Act.

The petitioner 's counsel submitted that after taking cognizance the trial of the case begins with Tr. No. 1640/18 before the court of learned CJM, Gopalganj, where altogether seven (7) prosecution witnesses were examined and out of seven prosecution witnesses, this petitioner was also examined as PW-7 on 03.04.2018. It was pointed out that none of the prosecution witnesses, PW-1 to PW-6 named this petitioner qua his any involvement with the crime in question during the trial and the petitioner was examined as prosecution witness No.7, for the reason that he was the distributor of Cable Internet Connection through his company namely, M/s ANI Network Pvt. Ltd. to co-accused Rahul Kumar Jha, who alleged to misappropriate the amount of Rs. 11 Lakhs from the account of the informant for purchasing railway tickets and, thereafter, transferring the amount to his own account after cancellation of purchased railway tickets. It was submitted that co-accused Rahul Kumar Jha was not examined before the learned trial court in view of section 315 of the Cr.P.C., rather he made one application before the court of learned CJM, Gopalganj on 03.04.2018, stating therein that this petitioner may be summoned as an accused,which was allowed by the impugned order dated July 13, 2018. 

The counsel also relied upon ‘Para 7’ of the legal report of Supreme Court in Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Yadav vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2639, which reads as under for better appreciation of the legal position in connection with issuance of summon under section 319 Cr.P.C. :-“7. It is no longer res integra that the power conferred under this Section is extraordinary and discretionary in nature, intended to be exercised sparingly and with due circumspection. While invoking it, the Court must be satisfied that the evidence appearing against the person sought to be summoned is such that it prima facie necessitates bringing such person to face trial. The degree of satisfaction required is higher than that warranted at the stage of framing of charge, yet short of the satisfaction necessary to record a conviction. Such satisfaction must rest on cogent and credible material brought on record during the trial, and not based on conjectures or speculations. In this regard, reference to a few judicial pronouncements of this Court would be apposite.
7.1. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92] extensively discussed the power conferred under Section 319 CrPC. Relevant part is
extracted hereunder: “90. … all that is required for the exercise of the power under Section 319 CrPC is that, it must appear to the court that some other person also who is not facing the trial, may also have been
involved in the offence. The prerequisite for the exercise of this power is similar to the prima facie view which the Magistrate must come to in order to take cognizance of the offence. Therefore, no straitjacket formula can and should be laid with respect to conditions precedent for arriving at such an opinion and, if the Magistrate/court is convinced even on the basis of evidence appearing in examination-in-chief, it can exercise the power under Section 319 CrPC and can proceed against such other person(s). It is essential to note that the section also uses the words “such person could be tried” instead of should be tried. Hence, what is required is not to have a mini-trial at this stage by having examination and cross-examination and thereafter rendering a decision on the overt act of such person sought to be added. In fact, it is this mini-trial that would affect the right of the person sought to be arraigned as an accused rather than not having any cross-examination at all, for in light of sub-section (4) of Section 319 CrPC, the person would be entitled to a fresh trial where he would have all the rights including the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses and examine defence witnesses and advance his arguments upon the same. Therefore, even on the basis of examination-in-chief, the court or the Magistrate can proceed against a person as long as the court is satisfied that the evidence appearing against such person is such that it prima facie necessitates bringing such person to face trial. In fact, examination-in-chief untested by cross-examination, undoubtedly in itself, is an evidence.
xxx
106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 CrPC. …

xxx
110. In Lal Suraj [Lal Suraj v. State of Jharkhand, (2009) 2 SCC 696 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 844], a two-Judge Bench held that there is no dispute with the legal proposition that even if a person had not been chargesheeted, he may come within the purview of the description of such a person as contained in Section 319 CrPC. A similar view had been taken in Lok Ram [Lok Ram v. Nihal Singh, (2006) 10 SCC 192 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 532 : AIR 2006 SC 1892], wherein it was held that a person, though had initially been named in the FIR as an accused, but not charge-sheeted, can also be added to face the trial. …. …… ……”

Delhi High Court directs Google, Indian Kanoon, and all other search engine operators and intermediary platforms to recognize person's "right to be forgotten" in its operations

In Laksh Vir Singh Yadav vS.  Union of India & Ors. (2026), Justice Sachin Dutta of Delhi High Court delivered a 144-page long judgement dated May 29, 2026, wherein, he concluded:"Google LLC/ Google Inc./Google India Private Ltd. and all other search engine operators are directed to de-index the relevant content, orders, judgments and associated reportage from name-based search results, and shall be complied in the same manner, as a direction under Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. 285. Indian Kanoon (iKanoon Software Development Private Limited) is directed to restrict name-based search functionality within its platform in respect of the records of the petitioners identified above. The judgments and orders shall remain accessible on Indian Kanoon by case number, citation, Court details and date. 286. All petitioners in respect of whom de-indexing has been directed shall be at liberty to seek masking from the concerned Court that rendered the original order or judgment. 287. The Union of India, through the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY), is directed to ensure compliance with these directions by the respondent intermediaries within the aforementioned time period. MEITY shall immediately communicate these directions to Google LLC/ Google Inc., Indian Kanoon and all other search engine operators and intermediary platforms operating within the jurisdiction of India, and shall file a compliance affidavit within a period four weeks from today." 

The 30-page long Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 has been framed under Section 87 (1) (z) (zg) and Section 87 (2) of section 87 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 by Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY). It was published in the Gazette of India on February 25, 2021, in the aftermath of Supreme Court's unanimous judgement dated August 24, 027 in K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, 2017 10 SCC 1. 

The judgement reads: "141. The right to be forgotten, understood as subsuming the right of an individual to seek removal or restriction of personal information from public digital accessibility, where such information is no longer relevant or serves no legitimate public purpose, flows naturally and necessarily from the constitutional recognition of informational privacy under Article 21." He pointed out: "146. India presently lacks a comprehensive statutory framework explicitly governing the right to be forgotten. However, the absence of specific  legislation does not preclude Constitutional Courts from recognizing and enforcing this right."

Justice Dutta recorded that  "Google has submitted that it performs a passive and neutral function" to state that "This is inaccurate. By actively collecting, indexing, organizing and serving personal data through name-based search results, and by deriving commercial revenue through advertising linked to those search results, Google is an active processor of personal data, which materially contributes to the invasion of informational privacy. The same has also been traced by the European Court of Human Rights, in the judgment rendered in Hurbain v. Belgium (Grand Chamber, Application No. 57292/16)...." He noted that "the functioning of Google (and similar search engines) is entirely automated and algorithmic....A purely mechanical process driven by algorithmic logic cannot constitute an exercise of freedom of speech and expression." Justice Dutta referred to the decision in Google Spain, S.L. vs. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) & Mario Costeja González (Case C-131/12) to state that "the activities of Google cannot be equated with those of the 'publishers of websites'. In Google Spain, it has been observed:“35 In this connection, it should be pointed out that the processing of personal data carried out in the context of the activity of a search engine can be distinguished from and is additional to that carried out by publishers of websites, consisting in loading those data on an internet page.” 176. It follows that Google’s indexing and serving of judicial and other records in response to name-based searches is not an exercise of any fundamental right that can be legitimately pitted against the petitioner’s fundamental right to informational privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. Such search engines are not ‘passive channels of information’, instead they are in the nature of a ‘commercial platform’, deriving revenue by leveraging user searches and associating them with advertising opportunities."  

Justice Dutta drew on Justice S.K Kaul's concurring judgement as part of 9-Judge Constitution Bench in K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017). Justice Kaul observed: “629. The right of an individual to exercise control over his personal  data and to be able to control his/her own life would also encompass his right to control his existence on the internet. Needless to say that this would not be an absolute right. The existence of such a right does not  imply that a criminal can obliterate his past, but that there are variant degrees of mistakes, small and big, and it cannot be said that a person should be profiled to the nth extent for all and sundry to know....631. The impact of the digital age results in information on the internet being permanent. Humans forget, but the internet does not forget and does not let humans forget. Any endeavour to remove information from the internet does not result in its absolute obliteration. The footprints remain. It is thus, said that in the digital world preservation is the norm and forgetting a struggle....634....People change and an individual should be able to determine the path of his life and not be stuck only on a path of which he/she treaded initially. An individual should have the capacity to change his/her beliefs and evolve as a person. Individuals should not live in fear that the views they expressed will forever be associated with them and thus refrain from W.P.(C) 1021/2016 & Connected Matters Page 73 of 144 expressing themselves. 635. Whereas this right to control dissemination of personal information in the physical and virtual space should not amount to a right of total eraser of history, this right, as a part of the larger right to privacy, has to be balanced against other fundamental rights like the freedom of expression, or freedom of media, fundamental to a democratic society. 636. Thus, the European Union Regulation of 2016 [ Regulation No. (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27-4 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive No. 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation).] has recognised what has been termed as “the right to be forgotten”. This does not mean that all aspects of earlier existence are to be obliterated, as some may have a social ramification. If we were to recognise a similar right, it would only mean that an individual who is no longer desirous of his personal data to be processed or stored, should be able to remove it from the system where the personal data/information is no longer necessary, relevant, or is incorrect and serves no legitimate interest. Such a right cannot be exercised where the information/data is necessary, for exercising the right of freedom of expression and information, for compliance with legal obligations, for the performance of a task carried out in public interest, on the grounds of public interest in the area of public health, for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes, or for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims. Such justifications would be valid in all cases of breach of privacy, including breaches of data privacy.”

Drawing on the Supreme Court's decsion, Justice Dutta wrote: "....the present proceedings are directed at enforcing the fundamental rights of the petitioners, originating from Article 21 of the Constitution, the rights that the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, expressly recognized as operating against both State and non-State actors" The relevant observations read: “328. Informational privacy is a facet of the right to privacy. The dangers to privacy in an age of information can originate not only from the State but from non-State actors as well…… 367. Claims for protection of privacy interests can arise against the State and its instrumentalities and against non-State entities, such as, individuals acting in their private capacity and bodies corporate or unincorporated associations, etc., without any element of State participation. Apart from academic literature, different claims based on different asserted privacy interests have also found judicial support. Cases arose in various jurisdictions in the context of privacy interests based on (i) common law; (ii) statutory recognition; and (iii) constitutionally protected claims of the right to privacy.....644. The right to privacy is a fundamental right. It is a right which  protects the inner sphere of the individual from interference from  both State and non-State actors and allows the individuals to make autonomous life choices.”

Supreme Court Legal Services Committee asked to appoint a competent legal aid counsel for Nilam Devi

In The State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Nilam Devi @ Lilam Devi & Ors. (2025), Supreme Court responded to the letter of Nilam Devi addressed to the Registry of the Court, stating that she requires legal assistance as she was not in a position to engage a counsel on her  own. The Court's order reads: "The Supreme Court Legal Services Committee is requested to appoint a competent legal aid counsel, having at least 15 years of standing at the Bar, to represent respondent No.1. The learned counsel so appointed shall be supplied with a full set of all the papers in the special leave petition. He/she shall secure necessary instructions in the matter and file a counter affidavit by the next date of hearing. Re-list on 09.02.2026. Earlier interim order dated 27.06.2025 shall continue to operate till the next hearing." The case arose out of final judgment and order dated March 24, 2025 passed by Justice Bibek Chaudhary of Patna High Court. 

In its interim order the division bench of the Supreme Court stated that the directions passed by the High Court contained in para 12 of the Order dated 24.03.2025 qua the Additional Superintendent of Police and Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna was shall remain stayed. It made it clear that we are not granting stay against the directions of the High Court vis a vis the Station House Officer. The order recorded that "On a query made by the Court, learned counsel for the State submits that an FIR was lodged on 02.04.2025 under Sections 354, 504 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”), Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “the POCSO Act”). 3. On the next date of hearing, learned State Counsel to submit a status report regarding the progress of investigation pursuant to lodging of the aforesaid FIR."

Supreme Court's order dated June 27, 2025 reads: "Given the directions of the High Court in the impugned order, we consider it appropriate that the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, and the then Assistant Superintendent of Police, Danapur, Patna, petitioner Nos. 3 and 6 respectively, should file their individual affidavits in the context of the issues highlighted by the High Court in the impugned order.
It would be open to them to engage independent legal counsel to appear before this Court on their behalf."
 

Supreme Court issues notice against Justice Sandeep Kumar's denial of bail in an Examination Scam Case

Upon hearing the special leave to appeal in Aditya Kumar @ Anshu vs. The State of Bihar Through Economic Offences Wong (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih issued notice, returnable on December 8, 2025. Its 2-page long order dated October 3, 2025 reads:'' 2. Respondent-State of Bihar may file its counter affidavit at least 48 hours prior to the returnable date. Such affidavit ought to include, inter alia, the 1following: (i) Particulars of chargesheet, if filed; (ii) Number of witnesses proposed to be examined by the prosecution;(iii) Whether charge has been framed or not; (iv) If the charge has not been framed/the trial has not commenced, as the case may be, the reason therefor; (v) If the trial has commenced, the number of witnesses examined and; (vi) Any other information relevant for a decision on the special leave petition.'' 

Upon hearing in Aditya Kumar @ Anshu vs. The State of Bihar Through Economic Offences Wong (2025), Justice Sandeep Kumar of Patna High Court had passed a 7-page long order dated August 6, 2025, wherein, he was "not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of regular bail." 

The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking bail in connection with an Economic Offence P.S. case of 2024 registered for the offence under sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) read with section 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, under sections 66, 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and under sections 3 and 10 of the Bihar Public Examination Act, 2024.

According to the prosecution case, the informant namely, Kumar Veer Dhirendra, had submitted a written report to the officer-In-charge of the Economic Offence Police Station, Patna stating therein that pursuant to the advertisement of the Bihar State Health Society, for the recruitment of 4,500 Community Health Officers, a computer based test was scheduled for December 1, 2024 and December 2, 2024. On November 30, 2024, the Economic Offence Unit, received confidential information that some malpractice is being done in the examination and thereafter, a team was constituted under the leadership of the D.I.G., EOU, Bihar for verifying the said information. While collecting intelligence, it was found that a cheating racket infiltrated the examination system and the owner of the examination centre, Superintendents, IT Managers, IT support staffs, invigilators, and employees of ‘We Shine Tech’, the company which was conducting the examination, were actively involved in facilitating this fraud. Thereafter, on December 1, 2024 the EOU team raided Ekam Evolutions Private Limited Examination Centre, Ashopur and it was found that a proxy server was installed, enabling unauthorized remote access to the examination computers. The centre owner and IT Manager namely, Amit Kumar and Adarsh Raj were present there. Realizing the situation, the officials of the E.O.U. secured the said place and proceeded to inspect other Examination Centres. Upon reaching at Wire Online Exam Centre, R.K. Puram, they found that even there the proxy server had been illegally connected to the network, enabling unauthorized remote access. Upon questioning, the Superintendent of the aforesaid Examination Centre namely, Ravi Bhushan failed to give any satisfactory reply regarding these irregularities. Thereafter, the team proceeded to ACME Institute of Information Technology, located on Ghordoud Road, Patna and after a technical inspection it was found that there was an unauthorized additional lease line and some articles were also recovered which indicated towards the fraudulent activities taking place there. When the suspected persons including the petitioner, who was deputed as an Examination Coordinator, did not disclose any detail regarding the scam, a search was conducted at all Examination Centres and the seized articles were sent for forensic examination. 

Thereafter, another round of questioning was done at the centres and search was also conducted through videography and some articles were seized and four persons were apprehended. Thereafter, the team inspected and raided several Examination Centres and also found irregularities and seized the incriminating articles and detained the suspects. After an intense interrogation, the apprehended persons, confessed to their involvement in the said crime during the examination of the Community Health Officer and they further gave their modus operandi that they had installed an unauthorized lease line at the Examination Centres, allowing them to remotely access the systems using software such as ‘Ammyy Admin’. During the confession, the apprehended persons also disclosed that 12 Examination Centres across Patna were compromised in this manner. 

On the basis of the above written report, the Police drew up a formal first information report and registered a case being Economic Offence Unit Patna P.S.Case No.28 of 2024 dated December 2, 2024.

Justice Kumar observed:''....it appears that the petitioner is involved in the examination scam. The petitioner is the room partner of co-accused Ashish Ranjan, I.T. Manager at Wire Online Examination Centre, R.K. Puram, Patna, who has stated that the petitioner is also involved in the examination scam. Thereafter, the flat of said Ashish Ranjan and present petitoiner was searched, from where A.T.M. cards, mobile phones, cheque books, Aadhar Cards and other documents were recovered. During investigation, it has come that the petitioner had got the Ammyy Admin Application installed in the computers of the examination centre through co-accused Ashish Ranjan.''

Supreme Court reverses order by Justice Sandeep Kumar in a regular bail case from West Champaran

In Rijaullah @Md. Rijaullah @Aahan @Bablu vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and K. Vinod Chandran passed a 2-page long order dated August 21, 2025, wherein, it reversed the order of Justice Sandeep Kumar of the Patna High Court. The High Court had dismissed the petitioner’s application for regular bail was got dismissed.

The Supreme Court's order reads: "Having considered the matter in detail and considering the fact that other co-accused have already been released on bail by the High Court and the present petitioner is in jail since 26.04.2024 that is about 01 year and four months, we are inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner be released on bail subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court."

In Rijaullah @Md. Rijaullah @Aahan @Bablu vs. The State of Bihar (2024), Justice Kumar had passed a 2-page long order dated August 7, 2024. The petitioner had sought regular bail in the case registered for the offence under Sections 379, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66(C)/66(E) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. As per the prosecution case, some unknown person called on the mobile of the informant numbered as 7765946015 from different four mobile numbers and in the name of offering Sofa, Lahanga, articles of make-up, I-phone, etc. cheated Rs. 4,40,000/- which is said to have sent by the informant through Pay Phone, Google Pay, Paytm in different accounts.

The petitioner's counsel had submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in thisa case. The name of the petitioner has come in the confessional statement of co-accused Amandeep Raj. The petitioner has clean antecedent and he was in jail since April 26, 2024. APP for the State had opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submitted that the Bank card, ATM Card of different bank Rupay card of Axis Bank, Debit Card of HDFC Bank mobiles with SIM was recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

Justice Kumar had concluded: "Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the application for regular bail is dismissed." Supreme has reversed his order. 

FIR under section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 & provisions of IPC quashed: Justice Sandeep Kumar

Patna High Court's Justice Sandeep Kumar quashed F.I.R. registered for the offence under Sections 323, 341, 376, 376-D, 420, 313, 120-B, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under section 67 of the Information Technology Act and all the consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R. including the order dated January 6, 2023 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Danapur. The Magistrate had passed the order under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for registration of the F.I.R.. 

In his 34-page long judgement in Sanjeev Hans vs. The State of Bihar & Ors (2024). Justice Kumar examined as to whether the offence of rape is made out against the petitioner or not besides non-compliance of Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C.

The other respondents were: Director General of Police, Patna, Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, Station House Officer, Rupaspur Police Station, Patna and Gayatri Kumari of Kataiya, Jamhur, Aurangabad.

Gayatri Kumari, the complainant is a practicing advocate in Allahabad High Court. She was practicing in Patna High Court from 2009 to 2015. In the month of February, 2016 while the complainant was staying at the residence of Senior Advocate Gajendra Prasad Yadav situated at Golden Plaza Apartment, Chitkohra for getting her case mentioned, a junior advocate namely, Shiv Nandan Bharti introduced her to Gulab Yadav, who was an M.L.A. It has also been alleged that said Gulab Yadav lured her by saying that he will get make her member of Women Commission and asked her to come to meet him along with her bio-data at his residence situated at Flat No.401, Bindeshwari Apartment. It is alleged that when the Complainant reached the house of said Gulab Yadav, he raped her at gun point and when the complainant was going to register F.I.R. then Gulab Yadav asked his servant Lalit to bring vermilion and put the same on the forehead of the complainant and said that they were married and they will get their marriage registered and asked for some time to get divorce from his first wife. 

She alleged that Gulab Yadav called the complainant to Pune to show the papers of the Court, by which divorce has been granted. On July 8, 2017 when thec complainant reached Hotel Bestil then Gulab Yadav introduced her to Sanjeev Hans, the petitioner and both raped her after mixing some intoxicating substance in her food. When the complainant regained her consciousness, Gulab Yadav showed her the video of her rape and sent the same on her mobile and threatened her to make the video viral. The complainant got scared and started to live in Allahabad and when she missed her periods, she informed Gulab Yadav about the same but Gulab Yadav asked her to take medicine for abortion which she consumed, however, she had to get admitted in hospital due to medical condition. Thereafter, Gulab Yadav got the complainant admitted in Rahul Judicial Classes, Delhi and arranged for her stay in a hostel in Mukherji Nagar, Delhi. 

She also alleged that Gulab Yadav used to call the complainant at different hotels and raped her where Sanjeev Hans, the petitioner also used to accompany Gulab Yadav. It has also been alleged that on February 13, 2018 at Ashoka Hotel, on February 14, 2018 at Park Avenue hotel and on March 27, 2018 at Le’ Meriden hotel, she was gang raped and resultantly she conceived and when she informed the accused about this, the accused persons threatened her. Out of fear, the complainant vacated her hostel and started living in Shalimar Bagh, Delhi where she gave birth to a male child on October 25, 2018 and when she informed this fact to Gulab Yadav, he told that it can not be his child as he has undergone vasectomy and said that the child is of Sanjeev Hans. When the complainant tried to contact Sanjeev Hans, he did not speak with her and since then the complainant is hiding from the accused persons as they are quite influential. It has further been alleged that the complainant went to Rupaspur Police Station for registering the F.I.R., but the Police did not register the F.I.R. by saying that the accused persons are quite influential and then the complainant sent the complaint to Superintendent of Police, Patna on October 28, 2021, however no action was taken in this regard. 

The complaint case was filed by the complainant before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, Patna for lodging the F.I.R. The Magistrate in his order dated November  18, 2021 recorded that the complainant has not produced any document in support of her claim of compliance of Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. and therefore, called a report from the concerned Police Station. Despite granting sufficient opportunity, the complainant did not appear for recording her S.A. and resultantly, the Magistrate vide order dated September 20, 2022 dismissed the complaint case under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the same, the complainant approached the High Court by way of filing Cr.W.J.C. No.1271 of 2022. This Court vide order dated 12.12.2022 has disposed of the said petition with certain directions. 

The relevant part of the order dated December 12, 2022 passed in Cr.W.J.C. No.1271 of 2022 reads as under:-

“Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, this Court finds that there is no dispute with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case, police was conducting a preliminary enquiry into the matter and a report was required to be sent to the learned ACJM Court at Danapur. The said report has been submitted or not is not within the knowledge of learned counsel for the State.

Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered opinion that once the matter was pending at the stage of preliminary enquiry and the report had been called for from the police, the learned ACJM should not have acted in haste in taking up the enquiry at his level by treating it as a complaint case.

The Magistrate vide order dated 06.01.2023  allowed the prayer of the petitioner to send the complaint petition under sectionn156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to the Police for registration of the F.I.R and accordingly, the present F.I.R. has been lodged. The Investigating Officer of the case has filed an application in the Court of learned A.C.J.M.-1, Danapur for deputing a Magistrate so that blood sample of Gulab Yadav, the son of Gayatri Kumari, the respondent no.5 and the petitioner be collected for DNA test but the Magistrate vide order dated 06.03.2023 has rejected the prayer of the Investigating Officer by holding that he has no jurisdiction to pass an order for DNA test. 

The counsel for Gayatri Kumari, the respondent no.5 that respondent no.5 is a practicing advocate and Gulab Yadav and present petitioner used to commit rape with her. Since Gulab Yadav has undergone vasectomy, the presumption goes to establish that the petitioner is the biological father of the son of the respondent no.5. Thus, the DNA test of the petitioner and the son of the respondent no.5 is required in order to determine the biological father of the son of Gayatri Kumari, the respondent no.5.

The judgement reads: "This Court can consider the quashing of the F.I.R. for preventing the abuse of the process of the Court and otherwise to secure the ends of justice and in my opinion, it is a fit case for interference in view of glaring facts of the case. This Court finds that it is a malafide prosecution because of some dispute... "

The Court observed:"From reading of the complaint petition, I find that the complainant has not filed any affidavit as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme in the aforesaid case and she has also not filed any document with the complaint petition showing compliance of section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, on account of non-compliance of section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C., the direction for registration of the F.I.R. vide order dated 06.01.2023 is against the law laid down by the Hon’ble SupremeCourt. The learned Magistrate though recorded non-compliance of the provisions of section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. on 18.11.2021 but, has proceeded to pass the order dated 06.01.2023 for registration of the F.I.R. Before the learned Magistrate passed an order for registration of the F.I.R., he had passed an order for preliminary enquiry. On 18.11.2021, the learned Magistrate directed for calling for a report from the concerned Police Station through Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna in light of the complaint petition. On 11.05.2022, the Police submitted an application saying that the Police was directed to submit the report after conducting the enquiry outside the State. Thereafter, the case was started as a complaint case and because of the nonappearance of the complainant on a number of days, the complaint was dismissed on 20.09.2022. This Court vide order dated 12.12.2022 passed in Cr.W.J.C. No.1271 of 2022 has set aside the orders dated 12.05.2022 and 20.09.2022 passed by the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, on 06.01.2023, the preliminary enquiry report of the police was opened in the Court, which was submitted in a sealed cover, and after considering the same, the learned Magistrate directed for registration of the F.I.R. 

The moment the enquiry report was opened by the learned Magistrate on 06.01.2023, before directing for registration of the F.I.R., the fact that the complainant/informant claimed herself to be the wife of Gulab Yadav and she gave birth to a child claiming to be the son of Gulab Yadav was well within the knowledge of the Court as well as the complainant /informant. The complainant / informant while filing the complaint / FIR has not disclosed the true facts i.e. she was treating herself to be the wife of Gulab Yadav, whenever she was hospitalized she claimed herself to be the wife of Gulab Yadav and when a boy was born the name of Gulab Yadav was disclosed by the complainant/informant saying that the father of her son is Gulab Yadav. These materials have been collected by the Police during the enquiry and they have been suppressed by the complainant / informant in her complaint/F.I.R.

From reading of the F.I.R., it appears that the complainant / informant has made allegation against two persons i.e. Gulab Yadav and the present petitioner. The date of occurrence mentioned in the complaint/F.I.R. is from February, 2016 to the date of filing of the complaint petition i.e. 16.11.2021. Initially, the allegations are levelled against Gulab Yadav who is said to have committed rape with the complainant/informant. The name of the petitioner is mentioned for an occurrence which is said to have taken place on 08.07.2017 at a Hotel in Pune alleging that the complainant was sexually assaulted by both the accused persons and Gulab Yadav made a video of the same and thereafter threatened her of making the video viral. Further allegations levelled in the complaint/F.I.R. primarily against Gulab Yadav and the complainant/informant has mentioned the name of the petitioner as an accomplice of Gulab Yadav and has alleged that he also used to commit rape with her. The complainant/informant is admittedly a lawyer practicing since 2009 and the complaint has been filed after about five years of the alleged incident of rape.

The complainant has waited for five years to file the complaint and there is no satisfactory explanation for the delayed filing of the complaint petition.

The petitioner herself is a grown-up woman, who is practicing Law and as per her own statement she was in a relationship with Gulab Yadav. 

Bail for offence under Section 66 (c) of Information Technology Act?

Raunak Kumar Jha, the petitioner is in judicial custody in connection for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66 (c) of the Information Technology Act, lodged on September 13, 2023 by Shahid Alam, the informant. The case was filed in the Patna High Court on July 11, 2024. It was registered on July 19, 2024. The case came up for hearing before the bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey in Court No. 204. Yogesh Chandra Verma, the senior counsel appeared for the petitioner's bail. 

Section 420 deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.

It reads: "Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

Section 66 (c) deals with punishment for identity theft. It reads: "Whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly make use of the electronic signature, password or any other unique identification feature of any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine with may extend to rupees one lakh." 

The punishment for theft under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is imprisonment for up to three years, a fine, or both. 

The informant alleged that by hacking his mobile number as also stealing his cheque, altogether Rs. 24,08,327/- were encashed through cash/Online transaction which led to the FIR. Rs 23 lakh was withdrawn online and the remaining amount was withdrawn by cheque. 

Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey bench's order dated August 5, 2024 had called for the case diary which also records the confessional statement of the petitioner where he has detailed out about earlier hacking the mobile of one Rajiv Ranjan to withdraw Rs. 3,00,000/- and this followed the crime committed by him with the informant.

The charge-sheet has been submitted in the matter and in that background, this Court would like to know about the present status of the case before the trial court. 

The order dated November 14, 2024, Justice Rajiv Roy of Patna High Court reads:"As such, call for a eport regarding stage of the trial in connection with aforesaid PS Case pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna."

Arguing for the bail of the petitioner, Yogesh Chandra Verma took strong objection to the counsel of respondent's claim about bench hunting by the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel pointed out that his client is accused of a bailable offence. He cited Supreme Court's decision in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar case (2014) established that arrests should be the exception when the punishment is less than seven years in prison. This landmark Supreme Court judgment established that bail is the rule, and arrests should be the exception, especially when the potential penalty is less than seven years in prison. Police should evaluate the necessity of an arrest under Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). 

Notably, the punishment for theft under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) depends on the value of the stolen property and the type of theft. 

Types of theft

Petty theft: Theft of property worth less than ₹1,000 

Ordinary theft: Theft of property worth between ₹1,000 and ₹10,000 

Aggravated theft: Theft of property worth more than ₹10,000 

Theft in a dwelling house: Theft of property from a home 

Theft in a vehicle: Theft of property from a transport vehicle 

Theft in a place of worship: Theft of property from a temple 

Theft of government property: Theft of property belonging to the government 

Punishment

Petty theft: Up to three months in jail, a fine, or both 

Ordinary theft: Up to three years in jail, a fine, or both 

Aggravated theft: Up to seven years in jail, a fine, or both 

Theft in a dwelling house: Up to seven years in jail, a fine, or both 

In some cases, the punishment for theft can be reduced if the stolen property is returned. 

High Court to hear Lawrence Bishnoi's illegal interview case on November 19

In its order dated October 28, 2024, the Punjab and Haryana High Court's Division Bench of Justices Anupinder Singh Grewal and Lapita Banerji observed: "The Advocate General, Punjab has filed the affidavit dated 27.10.2024 of Assistant Inspector General of Police wherein it is stated that Punjab police officers/officials have been placed under suspension and departmental proceedings have been initiated against the 8 officers. Inspector Shiv Kumar, the then Incharge, CIA Kharar who had been given extension in services has been terminated by the order dated 25.10.2024. It appears that beside two gazetted officers who have been placed under suspension, the other officers include officers of the rank of HC, ASI, Sub Inspectors. This Court, by order dated 07.08.2024 had specifically directed that action should be taken against the senior officers who had facilitated the interview and the lower level officers should not be made scapegoats. No action appears to have been taken against the senior officers of the District. By order dated 24.09.2024, we had also directed the State to inform us by filing an affidavit of the competent authority as to why the interviewee had been kept in the premises of CIA Staff Kharar for a long period of time, and whether the repeated remands to keep the interviewee there was a deliberate attempt to keep him at the same station for extraneous reasons or whether he was generally required for investigation. Explanation was also sought for as to why Shiv Kumar, the then Incharge CIA was given extension and posted there. The affidavit addressing the aforesaid concern of the Court has not been filed till date. We, therefore, direct the Director General of Police, Punjab to file an affidavit in this regard. Earlier it came to the notice of this Court that the Director General of Police had made a statement in a press conference that the interview had not taken place in any jail in the State of Punjab." 

It also observed: "The fact that the interview had been conducted within the premises of CIA staff Kharar, District SAS Nagar makes it even worse as it appears to have been conducted in connivance with the police officers. Therefore, we direct the DGP, Punjab to disclose on affidavit the basis of such statement made during press conference. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that although this Court by the order dated 21.12.2023 had directed the interview to be taken off from all social media platforms by blocking/removing all URL links but it has again resurfaced on some websites/social media handles. This Court by order dated 21.12.2023 had directed the removal of the interview. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced hereunder:-
“While hearing the matter, it had also come to our notice that a known criminal, namely, Lawrence Bishnoi, who is also a suspect in the murder case of a renowned singer Shubhdeep Singh Sidhu Moosewala, had been interviewed by a News channel and the interviews had been telecast in March, 2023. Lawrence Bishnoi was stated to be in the custody of the Punjab police or judicial custody in the State of Punjab at that time. We were informed that the interviewee was in Bathinda jail when the interview was telecast but the place and time the interview was conducted was not known. A two member High-Powered Committee comprising of Director General, STF and ADGP, Prisons had been constituted in March 2023 to enquire into the incident as it had been viewed seriously by the authorities. The report of the Committee had been placed before us in a sealed cover and a copy of the report was also furnished to the learned amicus curiae. Learned amicus curiae submits that there are several aspects which have not been looked into by the Committee and if the matter is properly investigated or re-examined, the exact time and location of the place where the interviewee was situated when the interviews were conducted can be pinpointed. She also submits that after registration of FIR, these aspects can be looked into by the Special Investigation Team. She stated that the telecast of the interviews is having an adverse impact on  youngsters who are getting swayed and it creates wrong impression on the young impressionable minds as the interviews glorifies the criminal life and activities and the interviewee has justified taking law in his own hands for settling personal scores. In fact, a prisoner facing so many criminal cases had access to technology while being in custody and then through that technology has justified his criminal acts as desire of God/destiny. The interviews have been viewed by over 12 million viewers. The amicus curiae further submits that after the telecast of interviews, many more young persons have started writing threatening letters to the film actor targeted in the interview of Lawrence Bishnoi. She further submits that although the fundamental right to speech and expression is important, but this right is subject to reasonable restrictions which include public order, decency, morality and incitement to offence. The telecast of the interviews is adversely affecting public order and harmony."  Advocate Tanu Bedi is the  Amicus Curiae. 

The relevant excerpts also reads" "We have also gone through the report which indicates that the Committee has come to the conclusion that it is highly improbable that interviews had taken place either in judicial custody or in the police custody in the State of Punjab. It is apparent that the Committee has not reached a definite conclusion that the interviews were not being conducted in a jail or police custody within the State of Punjab. They have recorded the statements of large number of witnesses in this regard."

The order noted: "We find it strange that the Committee took over 8 months to arrive at an inconclusive finding. Nonetheless, the Committee has made a recommendation for registration of two FIRs with regard to two interviews which were conducted in violation of the law. The Committee has recommended that the government may consider registration of two separate FIRs (one each for the respective interview) at a police station having statewide jurisdiction to investigate the matter and take on record relevant evidence/data exercising the powers available under Cr.P.C. If during the course of investigation, the offence(s) relating to any of the two cases or both of them is/are found to have occurred outside the State, the concerned case(s) may be transferred to police station(s) of appropriate jurisdiction. Further, the Committee has also made a recommendation to the Government to remove the URL of the video from the public domain.  The ADGP, Prisons, Punjab submits that they recommended registration of FIR as after registration of FIR the matter can be investigated with the procedure prescribed and connected cases under the Cr.P.C. for summoning the witnesses to record their statements etc. Learned State counsel submits that the report is being considered by the Government and appropriate action would be taken. She also submits that Lawrence Bishnoi is involved in 71 cases in the State of Punjab and had been convicted in 4 cases which includes offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, 302 IPC, extortions etc. The State itself appears to have taken up the matter with some seriousness as a High-Powered Committee was set up by the State. In the backdrop of the gravity of the situation where a suspect, who is involved in a large number of serious criminal cases, is allowed to conduct an interview in police/judicial custody and it has taken the Committee over eight months to submit an inconclusive report, we, while directing the registration of the FIR would like the matter to be investigated by a Special Investigation Team. Those, who facilitated the interviews need to be brought to book at the earliest. We deem it appropriate to constitute a Special Investigation Team headed by Mr. Prabodh Kumar, D.G., Human Rights Commission, the other members of the Team would be Dr. S. Rahul, IPS and Ms. Nilambari Vijay Jagadale, DIG, Cyber Crime.  It is true that freedom of speech and expression has been enshrined in Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. This freedom also includes a free and fair press which is an important pillar of a democracy governed by rule of law. However, this freedom is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions as provided under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, which include security of State, public order and would not permit incitement to an offence.  We have gone through the contents of the interviews which indicate that it glorifies crime and criminals. The interviewee is involved in 71 cases in the State of Punjab and had been convicted in 4 cases which includes offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, 302 IPC, extortions etc. The interviewee is justifying target killings and his criminal activities. He has reiterated and justified threat to a film actor. As in a large number of cases wherein he is involved, trials are underway and attempt to projecting his persona as larger than life could influence the witnesses. These interviews are stated to have garnered over 12 million views. It would have an adverse impact upon youngsters with impressionable minds. Punjab is a border State and any deterioration in law and order or increase in crime could affect the national security as at times, anti national elements take advantage of the situation and often use criminals for their nefarious designs. They often get help from across the border. There is a thin line between extortion, target killings and anti–national activities. The conduct of the interviews is an apparent jail security breach and violation of the Prisons Act. The interviews have been telecast for the last 9 months and are available on public domain. xxxxX”
(c) In case the said interviews are discovered by police authorities to be existing on any social media
platform in future, the same be get removed with immediate effect;
(e) To direct the search engines Google Search, Yahoo Search, Microsoft Bing to globally de-index and de reference from their search results the afore-said interviews and their related contents as identified by its web URL and image URL. xxxxxX”.

The order reads: "Learned Advocate General assures this Court that necessary steps shall be taken to remove the interview from all the social media platforms located globally and in compliance to the order and appropriate action shall be taken against those who have facilitated the uploading and forwarding of the banned content. Further, we direct that there should be periodic check and if interviews banned vide order dated 21.12.2023 are found to have resurfaced then they be removed immediately without any further orders of this Court. This Court had constituted the SIT headed by Mr. Prabodh Kumar, Special DGP, Punjab State Human Rights Commission to conduct investigation in FIR No.2 dated 06.01.2024 registered under Sections 384, 201, 202, 506, 116, 120-B IPC and 52A of Prisons Act. The SIT had been able to pinpoint that the interview had taken place within the premises of CIA staff Kharar on the basis of assessment of electronic evidence and had also been able to pinpoint the misconduct & negligence of the officers. However, cancellation report had been filed before the JMIC wherein it was mentioned that besides offence under Section 506 IPC, the aforenoted offences under which the FIR had been registered were not made out. It is important to note that the SIT has been able to establish that the interview had taken place within the premises of the CIA staff Kharar in the presence of senior officers of the Punjab Police. The office of the Officer Incharge of the Police Station was used as a studio to conduct the interview. The official Wi-Fi at the premises of the CIA staff had been provided for conducting the interview which is a pointer towards the criminal conspiracy. The report indicates that roznamcha was also forged and fabricated. The matter calls for further investigation as to for what consideration this was done and the various aspects towards offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act besides other offences need to be examined. Therefore, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. raises a suspicion of nexus and conspiracy between the police officers and the criminal. The police officers allowed the criminal to use electronic device and provided a studio like facility to conduct the interview which tends to glorify crime with the potential to facilitate other crimes including extortion by the criminal and his associates. Involvement of the police officers may suggest receipt of illegal gratification from the criminal or his associates and constitute offences under Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, the case requires further investigation. Learned Advocate General, Punjab submits that it is indeed a serious matter and further investigation needs to be carried out towards unearthing the criminal conspiracy, abetment, corruption etc. Mr. Prabodh Kumar, Special DGP, Punjab State Human Rights Commission, who is virtually present in Court submits that the SIT earlier did not have the mandate to look into the other offences including those under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the investigation was not carried out regarding those aspects as the SIT did not deem it appropriate to conduct a fishing and roving enquiry."

It further reads:"We direct that a new SIT headed by Mr. Prabodh Kumar and also comprising of Mr. Nageshwar Rao, ADGP, Provisioning and Mr.Nilabh Kishore, ADGP, STF to carry out further investigation towards criminal conspiracy, abetment, forgery, offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, Information Technology Act and also under any other offence. The SIT shall file a status report within a period of 6 weeks. The learned Advocate General, Punjab submits that he shall be filing an affidavit with the Registry with regard to augmentation of jail security.  At this juncture, learned Amicus Curiae has also informed the Court that an application has been received from the inmate of District Jail Nabha namely Ravinder Singh @ Lali Maur son of Baldev Singh that he is a law student and wants to apprise this Court of various issues concerning the jail. He may address this Court on the next date of hearing through video conferencing. The Superintendent, District Jail, Nabha shall provide video conferencing facilities to enable the applicant to address the Court. List on 19.11.2024.  Photocopy of this order be placed in the connected file(s)."

In its order dated October 15, 2024, the Punjab and Haryana High Court's Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justices Anupinder Singh Grewal and Lapita Banerji had observed: Mr. Prabodh Kumar, the Special Director General of Police, Punjab Human Rights Commission cum-head of the SIT has filed an affidavit with regard to the completion to investigation in FIR No. 1 dated 05.01.2024 registered at Police Station State Crime, Punjab, SAS Nagar. It is state din the affidavit that the police. report under Section 173 Cr.P.C (now BNSS, 2023) has been filed on 09.10.2024 in the Court of JMIC, District SAS Nagar. In  the affidavit, self-contained note has been annexed as Annexure R-1 indicating the misconduct,  negligence and dereliction of duty by the concerned officers. The note has also been sent to the Administrative Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs  We appreciate the commendable efforts made by the SIT headed by Mr. Prabodh Kumar, IPS in conducting the investigation as well as preparing the note pointing to the negligence and dereliction of duties of the officers. Learned Amicus Curiae prays for time to examine the affidavit and to apprise this Court as to whether the report of the High Powered Committed set up by the State Govt. suffered from lapses which were deliberate or intentional in not taking the matter to its logical conclusion. Learned State counsel submits that they have received a self- contained note (Annexure R-1) and has assured the Court that appropriate action has been initiated against delinquent officials and prays for sometime to file an affidavit in that regard. Mr. Arun Pal Singh, ADGP (Prisons), Punjab, while appearing through video conferencing, submits that several steps have been taken towards installation of V-Kavach jammers and prays for time to file an affidavit in this regard. List on 28.10.2024. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case." 

Notably, on July 30 2024, Supreme Court's bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma had passed an order dismissing a special leave petition (SLP) challenging the first information reports (FIRs) lodged against gangster Lawrence Bishnoi on the direction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in connection with the interview given to a private TV while being lodged in high-security prison. Lawrence Bishnoi's original name is Balkaran Brar. The SLP was filed on June 11, 2024, verified on July 25, 2024 and registered on July 30, 2024. The respondents were: the State of Punjab, the State of Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh. 

The Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justices Anupinder Singh Grewal and Kirti Singh had passed a detailed order on December 21, 2023. The High Court took note of the case of Lawrence Bishnoi's interview while hearing a totally unrelated case. 

The High Court's order reads: "While hearing the matter, it had also come to our notice that a known criminal, namely, Lawrence Bishnoi, who is also a suspect in the murder case of a renowned singer Shubhdeep Singh Sidhu Moosewala, had been interviewed by a News channel and the interviews had been telecast in March, 2023. Lawrence Bishnoi was stated to be in the custody of the Punjab police or judicial custody in the State of Punjab at that time. We were informed that the interviewee was in Bathinda jail when the interview was telecast but the place and time the interview was conducted was not known. A two member High-Powered Committee comprising of Director General, STF and ADGP, Prisons had been constituted in March 2023 to enquire into the incident as it had been viewed seriously by the authorities. The report of the Committee had been placed before us in a sealed cover and a copy of the report was also furnished to the learned amicus curiae. Learned amicus curiae submits that there are several aspects which have not been looked into by the Committee and if the matter is properly investigated or re-examined, the exact time and location of the place where the interviewee was situated when the interviews were conducted can be pinpointed. She also submits that after registration of FIR, these aspects can be looked into by the Special Investigation Team. She stated that the telecast of the interviews is having an adverse impact on youngsters who are getting swayed and it creates wrong impression on the young impressionable minds as the interviews glorifies the criminal life and activities and the interviewee has justified taking law in his own hands for settling personal scores. In fact, a prisoner facing so many criminal cases had access to technology while being in custody and then through that technology has justified his criminal acts as desire of God/destiny. The interviews have been viewed by over 12 million viewers. The amicus curiae further submits that after the telecast of interviews, many more young persons have started writing threatening letters to the film actor targeted in the interview of Lawrence Bishnoi. She further submits that although the fundamental right to speech and expression is important, but this right is subject to reasonable restrictions which include public order, decency, morality and incitement to offence. The telecast of the interviews is adversely affecting public order and harmony."

The order reads: "We have also gone through the report which indicates that the Committee has come to the conclusion that it is highly improbable that interviews had taken place either in judicial custody or in the police custody in the State of Punjab. It is apparent that the Committee has not reached a definite conclusion that the interviews were not being conducted in a jail or police custody within the State of Punjab. They have recorded the statements of large number of witnesses in this regard. We find it strange that the Committee took over 8 months to arrive at an inconclusive finding. Nonetheless, the Committee has made a recommendation for registration of two FIRs with regard to two interviews which were conducted in violation of the law. The Committee has recommended that the government may consider registration of two separate FIRs (one each for the respective interview) at a police station having statewide jurisdiction to investigate the matter and take on record relevant evidence/data exercising the powers available under Cr.P.C. If during the course of investigation, the offence(s) relating to any of the two cases or both of them is/are found to have occurred outside the State, the concerned case(s) may be transferred to police station(s) of appropriate jurisdiction. Further, the Committee has also made a recommendation to the Government to remove the URL of the video from the public domain."

The order reads: "The ADGP, Prisons, Punjab submits that they recommended registration of FIR as after registration of FIR the matter can be investigated with the procedure prescribed under the Cr.P.C. for summoning the witnesses to record their statements etc. Learned State counsel submits that the report is being considered by the Government and appropriate action would be taken. She also submits that Lawrence Bishnoi is involved in 71 cases in the State of Punjab and had been convicted in 4 cases which includes offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, 302 IPC, extortions etc. The State itself appears to have taken up the matter with some seriousness as a High-Powered Committee was set up by the State. In the backdrop of the gravity of the situation where a suspect, who is involved in a large number of serious criminal cases, is allowed to conduct an interview in police/judicial custody and it has taken the Committee over eight months to submit an inconclusive report, we, while directing the registration of the FIR would like the matter to be investigated by a Special Investigation Team. Those, who facilitated the interviews need to be brought to book at the earliest."

The High Court observed: "We have gone through the contents of the interviews which indicate that it glorifies crime and criminals....he interviewee is justifying target killings and his criminal activities. He has reiterated and justified threat to a film actor. As in a large number of cases wherein he is involved, trials are underway and attempt to projecting his persona as larger than life could influence the witnesses....The conduct of the interviews is an apparent jail security breach and violation of the Prisons Act. The interviews have been telecast for the last 9 months and are available on public domain. The Committee has recommended that the Government may ask the police to ensure removal of videos pertaining to Interview-I and Interview-II from YouTube/ internet, wherever possible. We would not like to wait for the government to act at its leisure but would direct the removal of the interviews. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Court on its own motion vs. Union of India and others, (CROCP No.2 of 2023) wherein while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, it had directed the removal/blocking of the offensive content from social media platforms."

It relied on Delhi High Court's decision in the case of ‘X’ vs. Union of India and ors. (Decided on : 20.04.2021),while drawing upon Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India wherein the Court had directed the offending contents to be removed. In the event of intermediary not removing objectionable contents in pursuance to the direction of this Court, it would loose its exemption under Section 79 of the I.T. Act from its liability in cases illustrated therein. Moreover, Rule 3(1)(b)(vii) of The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 provides that, the intermediary shall make reasonable efforts to cause the user of its computer resource not to host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, store, update or share any information which threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign States, or public order, or causes incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence, or prevents investigation of any offence, or is insulting other nation; (emphasis supplied). Furthermore, Rule 3(1)(d) provides that an intermediary, on whose computer resource the information is stored, hosted or published, upon receiving actual knowledge in the form of an order by a court of competent jurisdiction or on being notified by the Appropriate Government or its agency under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 79 of the Act, shall not host, store or publish any unlawful information, which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force in relation to the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India; security of the State; friendly relations with foreign States; public order; decency or morality; defamation; incitement to an offence relating to the above, or any information which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force.

The High Court had issued the following directions:
i) The DGP, Punjab, is directed to immediately register two FIRs with regard to the conduct of two interviews as recommended by the Special Investigation Team in the police station having State-wide jurisdiction.
ii) The investigation of the FIRs shall be carried out by the Special Investigation Team headed by Mr. Prabodh Kumar, IPS, DG, Human Rights Commission. The other members of the SIT would include Dr. S.Rahul, IPS and Ms.Nilambari Vijay Jagadale, DIG, Cyber Crime.
iii) The Head of the SIT would be at liberty to seek assistance of any other officer or of any other kind, on his making a request, the DGP, Punjab shall provide all necessary help and assistance to him. A copy of the report dated 11.12.2023 and the relevant record shall be handed over to the Head of the SIT. The SIT shall conclude the investigation expeditiously and file a status report before this Court within a period of two months.
iv) The DGP, Punjab is further directed:
(a) to get the URLs/weblinks/videos pertaining to both the said interviews removed/blocked/disable/restrict from all social media platforms like Youtube etc. forthwith;
(b) To ensure that the Press channel, where the said interview is hosted, removes the URLs/weblinks/videos from all its news /social media platforms with immediate effect;
(c) In case the said interviews are discovered by police authorities to be existing on any social media platform in future, the same be get removed with immediate effect;
(d) to direct the intermediary to preserve all the information associated relating to the offending content for use in investigation, in line with Rule 3(1) (g) of the 2021 Rules;
(e) To direct the search engines Google Search, Yahoo Search, Microsoft Bing to globally de-index and de-reference from their search results the afore-said interviews and their related contents as identified by its web URL and image URL. 

(f) All the concerned intermediaries be informed that non- compliance with the foregoing directions would make the non-complaint party liable to forfeit the exemption, if any, available to it generally under Section 79 (1) of the I.T.Act and as specified by Rule 7 of 2021 Rules: and shall make such entity and its officers liable for action as mandated by section 85 of the I.T.Act.
(g) The ADGP, Prisons, Punjab shall file a status report with regard to the timelines for installation of jammers, CCTV cameras, nylon mesh, X-ray body scanners etc. for augmentation of jail security.

A subsequent order of the High Court dated September 24, 2024 records that Tanu Bedi, Amicus Curiae submitted that "the interviewee had been kept at the premises of the CIA Staff Kharar for a long period of time and repeated remands had been taken to keep him there which needs to be examined as to whether there was a deliberate attempt to keep him there for extraneous reasons or he was genuinely required for investigation. It has also been brought to our notice by the counsel for State of Punjab that Inspector Shiv Kumar, the then Incharge of the CIA Staff, Kharar had retired in the year 2023. However, the affidavit filed by the ADGP (Prisons) indicates that Inspector Shiv Kumar was Incharge of the CIA Staff Kharar till January, 2024. It is disconcerting to believe that an officer, who had superannuated, had been given extension and posted at CIA Staff Kharar. Learned State counsel prays for time to seek instructions in this regard and file an affidavit of the competent authority as to why he was given extension and posted at CIA Staff Kharar. The State shall also file an affidavit in response to the submission of the learned Amicus Curiae with regard to stay of interviewee at CIA Staff Kharar and as to whether the officers who have been issued show cause notices are currently at posts having public dealing."

 

The order of September 24, 2024 notes that the State counsel filed an affidavit of the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Litigation, Bureau of Investigation, Punjab in Court to submit that "show cause notices have been issued to four officers including the then SSP of the District SAS Nagar as to why disciplinary proceedings be not initiated against them. He has also filed an affidavit of the Additional Director General of Police, Prisons, Punjab indicating the progress made in installation of jammers, AI based CCTV cameras, body worn cameras, X-Ray baggage scanners and prison inmate calling system." The order states that the counsel for Union of India, one of the respondents "furnished a copy of the communication issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs to the Additional Solicitor General of India dated 18.09.2024 indicating that ‘no objection certificate’ to the State Government has been accorded vide letter of even number dated 23.08.2024 to the proposal of the Department of Jails, Govt. of Punjab for deployment of jammers in its jails. The said communication is taken on record." But the order records that Arun Pal Singh, ADGP (Prisons), Punjab, while appearing through video conferencing, submitted that "no objection certificate for installation of jammers in the Central Jail, Sri Goindwal Sahib is still pending consideration before the Govt. of India." 

 

Notably, ABP Network news channel has filed a case in the Supreme Court through Advocate Prasanna S. on August 13, 2024 which was verified On September 13, 2024 and registered on September 12, 2024 in the aftermath of High Court's order wherein it took note of the interview of Lawrence Bishnoi in jail by Jagvinder Patial, a ABP News journalist. In December 2023, the High Court had ordered the registration of FIR and probe by an SIT headed by IPS officer Prabodh Kumar into the interview of Bishnoi. The High Court had acted suo motu in the matter concerning the use of mobile phones by inmates within jail premises. On August 30, 2024, the Supreme Court's bench of Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra passed an order saying, "While the second petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation by the Special Investigation Team which has been constituted by the High Court, we direct that pending further orders of this Court, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners." The second petitioner is Patial, the journalist. The case is pending before the Supreme Court. 

 

It is apparent that subsequently, Lawrence Bishnoi was put in Delhi's Tihar Jail. He was lodged there before being handed over to the Gujarat Anti-Terrorism Squad in April 2023 even as the case being heard in Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Supreme Court. Gujarat Police had found the role of one Bharat Bhushan alias Bhola Shooter - a member of the Lawrence Bishnoi gang - in the 2021 Morbi drug seizure. Bhushan died while being in jail. Later, National Investigation Agency (NIA) had filled a chargesheet against gangsters Lawrence Bishnoi and Goldy Brar for having links with the banned pro-Khalistan outfit Babbar Khalsa International (BKI) and other similar terrorist groups in one of three terror-criminal nexus cases. The chargesheet named 12 other individuals. NIA had alleged that Bishnoi, along with Canada-based gangster Goldy Brar and has been operating his terror-crime syndicate from jails. Bishnoi is in jail from 2015. Goldy Brar is reported to be hiding in Canada. 

 

Also read: Gopalganj native Baba Siddique killed in Mumbai by a gang of Lawrence Bishnoi lodged in Sabramati Central Jail?