The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case Sanjeev Singh v. State of Punjab observed and has granted bail to the Army man Sanjeev Singh, who was being arrested in the Chandigarh University video leak case in September. The bench headed by Justice Amarjot Bhatti in its order stated that the entire investigation is complete and the accused cannot be put behind the bars for an indefinite time period. The court in its order stated that the chargesheet is yet to be framed, thus, the prosecution evidence is to be recoded. On 24.09.2022, the petitioner was arrested in this case and since then the petitioner is in judicial lock up. However, the trial of the said case may take long time. An FIR was registered in September in Punjab’s Mohali on the basis of a statement which is given by a manager of the girls’ hostel of the university. In the said statement, a female being an accused of making of the obscene videos of other students in the hostel.
However, according to the complaint, videos and photographs had been deleted from the phone but she “was continuously receiving calls and messages”. She was being told to put the call on speaker and she asked the said caller to send the photographs or video which he had received. Thus, the said boy had sent screen shot of an obscene video. Which she had strictly enquired from the girl accused as she confessed everything. An FIR was being registered against the girl and a co-accused, Singh’s name cropped up during further investigation. The boy has been accused of offences under Section 354A, Section 354C, Section 354D, Section 506, Section 509 and Section 511 of the IPC and Section 66 (C), Section 66(D), Section 66(E), Section 67A and Section 84 (C) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It has been argued by the counsel that he was falsely being implicated in the case and that he had not prepared any obscene video or clicked any such photographs.
Further, it was contended that even if the case of the prosecution was to be believed, the merely received an obscene video, which was not circulated by him to anybody. Since September 24, he had been in custody. On the other hand, the state while confirming that challan has already been presented before the trial court, stated that the allegations against the petitioner-accused are being specific and serious in nature and a specific role has been attributed to the boy. Further, the state contended that since charges are yet to be framed in this case and considering the gravity of the offences, the petitioner is not being entitled to be released on jail.
