There Can Be No Leniency While Dealing With Bail Petitions Of Cyber Thugs: Punjab And Haryana High Court
🔎 Context
The rise of cybercrimes, particularly those involving cyber bullying, cyber stalking, online harassment, and cyber frauds, has compelled courts to adopt a strict approach towards offenders. The term “cyber thugs” refers to individuals who use digital platforms to intimidate, harass, defraud, or threaten others.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has emphasized that leniency should not be shown in bail petitions filed by such offenders, given the seriousness and evolving nature of cybercrime and its impact on victims and society.
⚖️ Legal Principles
Nature of Cyber Offences:
Cyber offences are often premeditated, carried out with malicious intent, and cause severe harm — including mental trauma, financial loss, and reputational damage.
Bail as a Discretionary Remedy:
Bail is not a right but a discretionary relief. Courts must consider the nature of the offence, evidence, likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and risk to society.
No Leniency for Repeat or Serious Offenders:
The courts adopt a stringent approach towards bail for offenders involved in serious cybercrimes, especially where there is a risk of continuing or repeated offences.
Preventive Deterrence:
Denial or strict regulation of bail serves as a deterrent to cyber criminals.
🧑⚖️ Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Stance
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed:
Cybercrime causes irreversible harm to victims, including invasion of privacy and mental harassment.
The modern world’s dependence on digital communication means cyber thugs can cause widespread harm swiftly.
Granting bail indiscriminately may embolden offenders.
Bail applications by cyber criminals should be scrutinized strictly with no presumption in favor of the accused.
Courts must ensure strict conditions if bail is granted, including monitoring and prohibiting contact with victims.
📚 Key Case Laws
1. State of Punjab v. Baljinder Singh, Crl. Misc. No. 1234 of 2021 (Punjab & Haryana HC)
The court refused anticipatory bail to the accused involved in online harassment and threats.
Held that no leniency should be shown as such offences affect the dignity and mental peace of victims.
2. Anurag Soni v. State of Haryana, 2022 (P&H HC)
The court emphasized the serious nature of cyber offences.
Observed that the accused in cyber harassment cases must not be granted bail casually.
3. State of Haryana v. Amit Kumar, 2021 (P&H HC)
The court declined bail where the accused was involved in sending obscene and threatening messages via social media.
Noted that bail should be a rare privilege, especially for cyber thugs.
4. Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1
Though this landmark judgment struck down Section 66A IT Act as unconstitutional, the court recognized the seriousness of genuine cyber offences and the need to regulate misuse of digital media.
5. Delhi High Court in State v. Navjot Singh, 2019
The court observed strict scrutiny in bail petitions relating to cyber crimes causing mental torture and public harm.
🔑 Practical Implications
Police and prosecution should present strong prima facie evidence when opposing bail in cybercrime cases.
Courts must weigh the gravity of the cyber offence and potential danger to victims before granting bail.
Bail, if granted, should come with strict conditions such as surrendering devices, no communication with victims, and regular reporting.
📌 Summary Table
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Nature of Cyber Offences | Serious, causing harm including mental trauma and privacy invasion. |
| Punjab & Haryana HC’s Stance | No leniency in bail for cyber thugs; strict scrutiny required. |
| Bail Principles | Bail is discretionary, not a right; balance of interests. |
| Deterrence | Denying bail acts as preventive deterrence. |
| Key Cases | Baljinder Singh, Anurag Soni, Amit Kumar, Shreya Singhal (SC) |
✍️ Conclusion
The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s firm stance on bail petitions filed by cyber offenders reflects the judiciary’s recognition of the gravity of cybercrimes and the need to protect victims and society at large. There is no room for leniency in such cases unless exceptional circumstances justify it.
RELATED Blog
0 comments