BA 1732022
: 1 :
IN THE COURT OF SESSION AT GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 173 OF 2022
(CNR No. MHCC020008512022)
Vishal Sudhirkumar Jha
)
… Applicant / Accused
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
)
(Western Cyber (BKC) Police Station) )
… Respondent
Ld. Adv. Aarati Deshmukh for Applicant/Accused.
Ld. APP Kalpana Hire for State/Respondent.
CORAM : HER HONOUR THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE SMT. SANJASHREE J. GHARAT
(C.R. NO. 39)
DATED : 28.02.2022.
ORDER
This is an application for bail u/s. 439 of Cr.P.C. in C.R.
No. 1 of 2022 registered with Western Cyber (BKC) Police Station for
the offences punishable under Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, 509, 500,
354D of I.P.C. and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000.
2.
The complainant approached the Western Cyber (BKC)
Police Station and informed that the holder of twitter handle i.e.
@bullibai_,
@sageox11,
@hmmachaniceoki,
@jattkhalsa7,
@wannabesigmaf and creator of bullibai app are stalking Muslim
woman and started online sale of their photographs for immoral and
illegal purpose. The said application named as bullibai was created on
online platform. The same was followed by people belonging to the
BA 1732022
: 2 :
particular community. The said application contains data defaming
various woman from particular community. However, the creators and
followers of the App are not belonged to a religion to which they shown
to be belonged in the App bullibai. Therefore, the said App is created
with an intention of dissimimating the information about woman of
particular religion. Based on the said information the FIR came to be
registered. During course of investigation, the involvement of the
Accused is found. Therefore, the Accused came to be arrested.
3.
The Applicant / Accused claims bail on the ground that he
is falsely implicated in the present offence. He belonged to the
respected family having deep roots in the society and do not have any
criminal antecedents. Moreover, the Accused not committed any such
overt act as alleged by the present complainant. It is further submitted
that Ld. Magistrate has rejected the bail application of the present
Accused merely on the ground that, the investigation is still in progress
and the Applicant has technical knowledge and therefore, can destroy
the evidence. It is submitted that during course of investigation the
Accused cooperated and handed over his Laptop and mobile phone for
investigation purpose. It is alleged that the Accused is mere follower of
said App., he being user of @hmmachaniceoki and the said twitter
handle being a follower of the bullibai app.
Therefore, it will not
constitute any offence as alleged.
4.
The Accused further submitted that he is student of BTech.
Moreover, the punishment prescribed for commission of offence is less
than 3 years and therefore, further incarceration in the present case is
unwarranted and it will amount to prejudicial sentence to the Accused.
The Accused further submitted that he is ready to abide the conditions
BA 1732022
: 3 :
of bail.
5.
The Prosecution has raised objection to grant bail by filing
Say. It is submitted on behalf of the prosecution that after arrest one
mobile, 2 Sim Cards and 1 Laptop was seized. However, during police
custody, the Accused found Covid Positive. Therefore, he was
transferred to the quarantine centre, Kalina. As a result, the mobile and
laptop needs to reopen with the help of Accused as they are Password
protected. So also, the Accused created number of Accounts on Twitter
and the said Accounts were deactivated / suspended / deleted.
Therefore, the presence of Accused is required. Moreover, the Accused
was holding github account and the correspondence is made for
providing the information as regards to said account. It is submitted
that the Accused created various fake accounts on social media app.
Therefore, investigation needs to be carried out as regards to the said
accounts. The Accused is member of Trad Mahasabha and High IQ Bruh
and more important is that the link of disputed App was shared on High
IQ Bruh. Moreover, it was tried to portray that the bullibai app is
created by particular community and targeted the ladies of particular
community. Therefore, the investigation is required to be carried out.
Hence, prosecution strongly raised objection for grant of bail to the
Accused.
6.
Heard Ld. APP. for State and Ld. Defence Advocate.
7.
The
complainant
filed
complaint
alleging
that
on
01.01.2022 she came to know from her friend that on bullibai app
hosted by github.com website her photograph is uploaded for auction.
Therefore, she found the said act outraging her modesty. Hence, she
BA 1732022
: 4 :
made inquiry about the bullibai App. At that time she came to know
that said App is created for online purchase and sell of Muslim woman
who are active on social media. So also, they uploaded photograph of
more than 100 muslim woman for online auction.
8.
The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused filed
Additional Arguments and pointed out that the offence is registered
against the present Accused with Western Cyber (BKC) police station at
the instance of the complaint filed by the present complainant. At the
same time, CR No. 1/22 registered with Cyber Crime Police Station,
South East Delhi at the instance of the complaint alleging same offence.
It is pointed out that the Accused preferred ABA before the Hon’ble
Court House at Patiala, New Delhi apprehending his arrest in CR No. 1
of 2022 registered with Cyber Crime Police Station, South East, Delhi.
At that time, the Hon’ble Session Judge was pleased to seek rectification
with respect to the difference in FIRs with respect to one registered at
Mumbai and another registered in Delhi. Thereafter, the Hon’ble
Sessions Judge in his order dated 21.01.2022 observed that the FIR
registered in Delhi is anterior in time from the one registered with
Western Cyber (BKC) Police Station. The Accused further relied on
observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Arnab Ranjan
Goswami vs. U.O.I. in Writ Petition No. 130/2020, wherein reliance is
placed on the ratio laid down in case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala
reported in 2001 SCC 805, thereby reiterating that, there can be no
second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent
information of the same cognizable offence. It is submitted that in the
present case, both the FIRs are registered on 02.01.2022. However, the
FIR registered at Delhi is anterior in time.
BA 1732022
9.
: 5 :
Per contra, it the contention of the prosecution that the
complainant in the present case and the complainant in the offence
registered against Accused at Delhi are different. Therefore, both the
FIRs are maintainable. It is further submitted that while the issue as
regards to the which FIR is anterior was decided, at that time, the
opportunity was not given to the Western Cyber (BKC) Police Station.
10.
I have gone through the judgments cited Supra in case of
Arnab Goswami, the cause of action was a broadcast took place on
16.04.2020 on Republic TV which was followed by broadcast on R.
Bharat on 21.04.2020.
These broadcasts were led to the lodging
multiple FIRs and criminal complaints against the Accused.
11.
So far as present case in hand is concerned, the victims in
both the matters are different. What is identical is the platform used by
the Accused for commission of offence. Therefore, the grievance of the
victim who filed complaint cannot be ignored merely because another
victim filed complaint against her grievance at Delhi. Moreover, the FIR
is already registered. Therefore, remedy available to the Accused to
approach the Hon’ble High Court for quashing of FIR if he is of the view
that the present FIR is not maintainable.
12.
From the argument advanced by the Accused it is alleged
that the App is not created by the Accused. However, he is just follower
of the said App. It is submitted on behalf of the prosecution that during
course of investigation, the connection of Accused is transpired with the
Accused who created the App. It is further submitted that the Accused
who created the App are arrested by Delhi Police. The Investigating
Agency has already sought transfer of creators of App from Delhi Police
in the present crime. The permission is already granted and the process
BA 1732022
: 6 :
is going on. Therefore, if the Accused is released on bail, possibility of
tampering in evidence can’t be ruled out.
13.
From the Reply filed by the prosecution it appears that
Accused Niraj Bishnoi and other coaccused including the Applicant are
all members of Group Chat ‘Trad Mahasabha’ and as a result of
discussion in the said group chat, the alleged App on github was created
by Accused Niraj Bishnoi. It is alleged by the prosecution that present
Accused had created a fake identity over twitter by the name of
@hmmachaniceoki and had joined the group chat through fake twitter
handles. The investigation is at initial stage and the detail investigation
needs to be carried out. The Accused Niraj Bishnoi with the Accused
and other coaccused has developed scandalous bullibai app. The said
App is used for virtual purchase and sell of muslim woman. So also, it
was tried to portraying that the said App is created by particular
community. Therefore, it resulted into causing defamation, hurting the
feelings of particular community and dignity and modesty of woman.
The investigation needs to be carried out and at this stage, the role of
the present Accused from rest of the Accused cannot be bifurcated. In
order to investigate into the undetected aspects of the crime the
custodial interrogation is required. Therefore, at this stage, as
investigation is in progress, the prayer of Accused for release on bail
cannot be allowed. Hence, I hereby proceed to pass following order :
ORDER
The Bail Application No. 173 of 2022 stands rejected.
Date : 28.02.2022.
Dictation Typed on :
Checked & Signed on :
28.02.2022.
01.03.2022.
(SANJASHREE J. GHARAT)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Session Court,
Greater Bombay.
BA 1732022
: 7 :
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
01.03.2022 at 2.20 pm
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
(Y.M. SAKHARKAR)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court SMT. SANJASHREE J. GHARAT
room no.)
(C.R. NO. 39)
Date
of
Pronouncement
JUDGMENT/ ORDER
of 28.02.2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. 01.03.2022
on
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
01.03.2022