Allowed

Aadil Hussain Teeli v. Cyber Crime, Special, Delhi Police

Delhi HC4 Sept 2018BAIL APPLN./1256/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought bail in an FIR for website hacking under the IT Act and sedition under IPC. The court granted bail after noting the petitioner had been in custody for over four months and the charge sheet was filed, pending forensic verification.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be released on bail on a personal bond with two surety bonds, subject to conditions regarding travel, address change, and evidence tampering.

Aadil Hussain Teeli Vs Cyber Crime, Special, Delhi Police — Narcotics (NDPS) | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~67

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 1256/2018

¶4

AADIL HUSSAIN TEELI ..... Petitioner Represented by: Ms.Shahrukh Alam, Ms.Warisha Farasat, Ms.Rudrakshi Deo and Ms.Hafsa Khan, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

CYBER CRIME, SPECIAL, DELHI POLICE ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing counsel with Ms.Rajni Gupta, APP for the State with Insp.Parveen Kumar, Cyber Cell, Special Cell

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 04.09.2018

¶10

By this petition, the petitioner seeks bail in case FIR No.47/2018 registered at PS Special Cell, Lodhi Colony under Section 66 Information Technology Act (in short ‘IT Act’) and Section 124A IPC.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no connection with the hacked websites or the material being used against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court through the documents in the charge sheet particularly at page 5 which shows the defaced website as also report received from the facebook i.e. facebook business record. As per the defaced site, the person’s vanity name is aadil808 whereas as per the facebook record the vanity name of the petitioner’s IP address is aadil.808.htek which is different. BAIL APPLN. 1256/2018 Page 1 of 4

¶12

Page 1 of 4

¶13

Learned Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand submits that this aspect would be looked into on examination of the laptop recovered from the petitioner from which documents have been found which have been sent to the FSL for verification; report whereof has been received and a supplementary charge sheet is being filed.

¶14

The abovenoted FIR was registered on the complaint of one Sachin Makhija, owner of Rajan Overseas Manufacturer & Exporter who complained that their website ‘rajanoverseas.co.in’ has been hacked since 27^th March, 2018 and unwanted contents and images on home and product pages of their websites have been uploaded. Currently the product pages are deleted and admin access is also not functional.

¶15

On the said FIR, investigation was carried out and during the course of investigation, user Shahid Malla was found to be maintaining another facebook account ‘HAXER 1’ with user name ‘SHAHID MALLA’. This account was found to be posting several pro Pakistani contents. Shahid Malla’s name was also mentioned on the defacement page posted over the hacked website of the complainant along with the name of the present petitioner and others. On analysis of the digital footprints, social media platforms and website of the accused persons, it was revealed that accused Shahid Malla is available at Rajpura, Punjab from where he was apprehended on 27^th April, 2018. After his interrogation, one laptop and two mobile phones were recovered. Since name of Aadil Hussain Teeli had also surfaced on the defacement page of the complainant’s website Shahid Malla was interrogated on this count, who informed about Aadil Hussain Teeli residing in Jalandhar, Punjab. The petitioner was thus apprehended on 27^th BAIL APPLN. 1256/2018 Page 2 of 4

¶16

April, 2018 and one laptop and one mobile phone were seized from his possession.

¶17

Petitioner is in custody since 27^th April, 2018. The offence under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act is punishable up to 3 years imprisonment. The other offence on which charge sheet has been filed is Section 124A IPC which is also punishable up to life or up to 3 years depending upon the nature of sedition activity.

¶18

Considering the fact that the petitioner has been in custody for more than four months, charge sheet has already been filed, evidence is documentary in nature and the verification whether Aadil Hussain Teeli is the same person who was using the IP Address and the vanity name would be clarified by the supplementary charge sheet, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioner. It is therefore directed that the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `25,000/with two surety bonds of the like amount one of which would be the father of the petitioner to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court further subject to the condition that the petitioner would not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court concerned and in case of change of residential address, the same will be intimated to the Court concerned. The petitioner and the sureties would also submit their mobile numbers which will be kept in active mode and in case of change of mobile numbers, the same will be also intimated to the Court concerned. Petitioner will also not indulge in any other similar activity nor tamper with the evidence or try to influence the witnesses.

¶19

Page 3 of 4

¶20

BAIL APPLN. 1256/2018

¶21

Petition is disposed of. 9. Order dasti.

¶22

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

¶23

SEPTEMBER 04, 2018 mamta

¶24

Page 4 of 4

¶25

BAIL APPLN. 1256/2018

Aadil Hussain Teeli v. Cyber Crime, Special, Delhi Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aadil Hussain Teeli v. Cyber Crime, Special, Delhi Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranga Khadka Vs State (the State of NCT Delhi)

Shahid @ Billi Vs State

Santosh Singh Vs State

Pushpender Vs State

Baldev Sharma Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Sudhir Satnaliwala Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.