Punjab and Haryana High Court: Harsimran Singh Sethi, J., held that, that once an offence takes place from the a mobile phone number, then the registered owner of the number has to explain as to how the said number was used for the commission of the offence.
Present petition was filed for grant of pre-arrest bail with regard to FIR under Section 420 Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 66 of IT Act, 2000.
Petitioner’s counsel, Padamkant Dwivedi, submitted that the petitioner had been unnecessarily roped in the above-mentioned FIR and the allegation alleged against him were totally incorrect and false.
Deputy Advocate General, Ajay Pal Singh Gill, filed a status report of the investigation wherein it had been mentioned that the number from which fake call was received, it was registered in the name of the petitioner.
Bench stated that once the mobile phone which has been used in the commission of the offence is registered in the name of the petitioner and the said number had been issued after bio-metric verification of KYC of the petitioner, it is the petitioner who has to explain as to how the said number was used for the commission of the offence.
Once the recovery of the phone is to be effected, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary so as to find out as to whether petitioner is also involved in any other cases of the similar nature or not.
Court found no ground to allow the petitioner the benefit of pre-arrest bail. [Shubham Singh v. State of Punjab, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 702, decided on 03-06-2020]
