ATUL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.K. Chavan, the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Heard Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent - State. I have also heard Mr. S.J. Salunke, the learned Counsel for the respodent no.2 i.e. first informant, who has filed an application for intervention in the matter.

(2.) On the basis of the FIR lodged by the intervenor, a crime was registered against the petitioners, in respect of an offence punishable under Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act [For short, "the I.T. Act"]. It is not in dispute that, this offence is bailable under the provisions of the said Act. After the registration of the offence, the petitioners approached the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), who was competent to take cognizance of the said offence, surrendered before him, and made an application for release on bail. The learned Magistrate expressed a doubt, as to whether, before arrest of the petitioners, they could seek bail from the Magistrate; but ultimately concluded that an offence punishable under Section 67-A of the I.T. Act was also disclosed from the facts alleged. It is not in dispute that, the offence punishable under Section 67-A of the I.T. Act is non-bailable. The Magistrate, however, on an application made by the petitioners, granted 'ad interim bail' (as termed by him), to the petitioners.

(3.) The petition is misconceived.