Landmark Judgments On Default Bail For Digital Crimes
⚖️ 1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) – Section 66A, IT Act
Court: Supreme Court of India
Background:
Several individuals were arrested under Section 66A of the IT Act for posting online content deemed offensive or defamatory. They were detained for extended periods without bail.
Judicial Issue:
Whether the accused could claim default bail under Section 167 CrPC for digital offences, especially when the offence is cognizable and non-bailable.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional, emphasizing freedom of speech. It also clarified that detention beyond 60/90 days without filing charge sheet violates Section 167(2) CrPC, entitling the accused to default bail.
Significance:
This case reaffirmed that digital offences must comply with procedural safeguards, and default bail cannot be denied arbitrarily.
⚖️ 2. Arun Kumar v. State of Maharashtra (2018) – Cyberstalking Case
Court: Bombay High Court
Background:
The petitioner was arrested under Section 66E and 67 of the IT Act for sharing obscene images online. Police did not file a charge sheet within 60 days.
Judicial Issue:
Whether default bail is available for IT Act offences when investigation is incomplete.
Judgment:
The court granted default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC, holding that IT Act offences are not exempt from statutory bail provisions, even if they involve sensitive content.
Significance:
It clarified that digital crime victims’ sensitivities do not override the accused’s statutory rights.
⚖️ *3. R.K. Sharma v. State of Delhi (2020) – Online Financial Fraud
Court: Delhi High Court
Background:
The accused was detained for alleged online banking fraud under Section 66C/66D of the IT Act. No charge sheet was filed within 90 days.
Judicial Issue:
Can digital financial crimes extend the statutory investigation period and deny default bail?
Judgment:
The court held that default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC applies regardless of the digital nature of the offence. Courts cannot deny statutory bail solely on the gravity or complexity of cybercrime.
Significance:
This judgment reinforced protection against prolonged pre-trial detention in digital offences.
⚖️ 4. Tanvi vs. State of Karnataka (2021) – Social Media Defamation
Court: Karnataka High Court
Background:
The petitioner was arrested for alleged defamatory posts on social media (Sections 66D, 66E, IT Act). Investigation was ongoing for 70 days.
Judicial Issue:
Whether default bail can be denied in cases affecting public reputation and social media content.
Judgment:
The High Court granted default bail, holding that potential reputational harm does not justify indefinite detention. It emphasized statutory timelines for filing charge sheets.
Significance:
It set a precedent that courts must balance digital victim concerns with the accused’s right to liberty.
⚖️ *5. Mohammed Ameer v. State of Telangana (2022) – Cyber Harassment
Court: Telangana High Court
Background:
The petitioner was arrested under Section 66A (now struck down) and 66E for sending harassing messages online. No charge sheet filed within 60 days.
Judicial Issue:
Whether Section 167(2) CrPC default bail applies to cyber harassment cases.
Judgment:
The court explicitly stated that cyber harassment is a cognizable offence, but statutory bail rights remain intact. Default bail was granted, provided conditions of appearance and cooperation in investigation were met.
Significance:
Reinforced that digital offences cannot override statutory protections for pre-trial release.
⚖️ *6. State of Maharashtra v. Amit Sharma (2019) – Online Child Exploitation
Court: Bombay High Court
Background:
The accused was charged under Section 67B of the IT Act for child sexual exploitation online. Police argued the investigation is complex and sought to deny default bail.
Judicial Issue:
Can courts deny statutory bail citing complexity of investigation?
Judgment:
The court held that complexity or sensitivity of digital evidence cannot automatically deny default bail. The accused is entitled to default bail after 60/90 days unless the court finds exceptional circumstances.
Significance:
Clarified that even serious digital offences are subject to statutory bail timelines, protecting the liberty of the accused.
⚖️ *7. Rahul Verma v. State of UP (2021) – Online Phishing and Cyber Fraud
Court: Allahabad High Court
Background:
The petitioner was arrested for phishing attacks under Sections 66C and 66D of IT Act. The investigation involved multiple banks and forensic experts, exceeding 90 days.
Judicial Issue:
Does complexity of forensic analysis delay the right to default bail?
Judgment:
The court granted default bail, emphasizing Section 167(2) CrPC is mandatory and investigative complexity cannot override it.
Significance:
Confirmed that even technically complex cybercrimes do not suspend statutory bail rights.
🧠 Summary Table of Principles from Cases
| Principle | Supporting Cases |
|---|---|
| Default bail applies to digital offences | Arun Kumar, R.K. Sharma, Tanvi |
| Investigation complexity cannot deny statutory bail | Amit Sharma, Rahul Verma |
| Offences under IT Act are cognizable but statutory timelines remain | Mohammed Ameer, Shreya Singhal |
| Courts must balance victims’ rights with accused’s liberty | Tanvi, Mohammed Ameer |
| Failure to file charge sheet triggers default bail | R.K. Sharma, Arun Kumar |
✅ Conclusion
Supreme Court and High Court rulings establish that:
Section 167(2) CrPC applies to all digital crimes.
Default bail cannot be denied solely based on gravity, sensitivity, or complexity of the cyber offence.
Courts must ensure statutory timelines are respected, while balancing investigation and victim concerns.
Digital crime investigation may involve AI, forensic, and financial tracking, but liberty protections remain paramount.
RELATED Blog
0 comments