1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2174 OF 2009 Mr. Girijan Gopalan Pillai. ..Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2175 OF 2009 Mr. Vimal Mohan. ..Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. Mr.A.P.Mundergi i/by Hrishikesh Mundergi for the Applicants. Mrs. M.H.Mhatre, APP. For the State. Mr.Shirish Gupte, Sr. Advocate i/by Amol Patankar for the complainant. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 30th March, 2010 PC : 1 The applicants in both these applications are shown as an accused in MECR No.1/2009 registered by Marine Drive Police Station for 2 alleged offences under Sections-379,420,408 and 120B read with 34 of the I.P.C. The applicant in Criminal Application No.2174/2009 is shown as accused No.1 and the applicant in Criminal Application No.2175/2009 is shown as accused No.3. The complaint is lodged by one Mr. Bhaskar Patel who is an Authorized Officer of the company known as PCS Technology Ltd. A Complaint was initially lodged as private complaint and order under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P. C. has been passed by the Magistrate. Application for anticipatory bail has been made. Now the complaint has been treated as F.I.R. and the investigation is in progress. I have perused the complaint. It is the grievance of the complainant that the accused Nos.1 to 5 as named in the complaint were the employees of the complainant company and it is their grievance that the company has come to know that the Applicant No.6 as mentioned in the complaint i. e. one Mr. Benson John was representing himself as General Manager (Commercial) of partnership firm M/s. Para Connect 3 Systems. Address of the said firm was shown to be the residential address of the accused No.3 i. e. Mr. Vimal Mohan who is the present applicant in Criminal Application No.2175/2009. The contention is that software by name WINPATH of which the company was holding intellectual rights was stolen by the applicant Nos. 1 to 5. They went to Egypt representing themselves to be the persons authorized to represent by M/s. Para Connect Systems and after stealing technology sold the same to certain foreign party. The monies received were deposited in the name of M/s. Para Connect Systems which was falsely represented to be the sister/associated company of the complainant company-PCS Technology Ltd. It is also mentioned in the complaint that one Dr. Hend Sherbini-CEO of the foreign company by name Al Mokhatabar had given accused Nos. 1 to 5 introduction letter based on false representation made by them so that they could travel to Egypt. In my view, taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, grant of 4 anticipatory bail will hinder the investigation. Both the applications are therefore, rejected. ( R.S. MOHITE, J.)