1 Cri-A-5657-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5657 OF 2010 M/s. Ugam Solutions Pvt.Ltd. ... Applicant Vs. Mr. Sandipan Subir Chaudhari & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel, i/b. Subodh Desai,Advocate, for the applicant. Mr.Vaibhav Sugdhare i/b. M/s. Khaitan & Jayakar, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Ms. A.T.Javeri, APP, for the respondent No.2. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 24th February, 2011. P.C. 1. This is an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge, Gr. Bombay, to the respondent No.1 in Crime No. 26/2010 registered with Cyber Police Station, Mumbai, for the offences under Sections 66, 72 and 72A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 408 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 2. To state in brief, the FIR of this offence was lodged by an officer of the applicant M/s. Ugam Solutions Pvt.Ltd. The respondent No.1, who is accused in the said offence, was working as Senior Manager in charge of business 2 Cri-A-5657-10.sxw development of the company. The said company had developed certain Software which were marketed. One of the Softwares is a "Price Trac". The password and complete details of that software were known to the accused-respondent. He was also required to visit foreign countries for development of the business of the company. During March to June 2010, he had been on the tour of America for business of the company for which he had received amount of Rs. 2,37,000/- as well as he had spent Rs.7,31,000/- on the credit card provided by the company with Laptop, Blackberry Phone, Vodaphone, Simcard, Internet data card and corporate credit card were given to him. Later on, it was revealed to the company that during his visit to America, he had not done any business of the company nor he had sold any product of the company but he had used the visit only for the purpose of marketing the product or Software of Global Image Factory, which was based on the Price Trac Software of the complainant company. It also revealed from the correspondence between the accused and the other persons on e-mail that while in the service of the complainant company, he had formed a partnership firm in the name of "Global Image Factory" wherein his father, brother and wife and two other employees of the complainant company were shown as partners. The brain behind the said partnership and its product was the accused himself. After all these facts came to the knowledge of the company, the FIR was lodged by its officer, namely, Irfan Mohsin Karim and on the basis of that the offence was 3 Cri-A-5657-10.sxw registered. 3. The learned Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail, holding that the custodial interrogation is not necessary, with condition that he shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and he shall attend the office of Investigating Officer whenever required during the course of investigation. It is also pointed out by the learned Counsel for the applicant company that the company has also filed a suit in the High Court against the respondent/accused wherein besides certain other reliefs, damages to the tune of Rs.78 lakh are claimed. The order dated 24.11.2010 passed in Suit Lodg. No.2937 of 2010 reveals that the learned Judge of this Court had collected the expert's opinion about the products and had come to prima facie conclusion that the product of Global Image Factory is based on the Price Trac Software, developed by the complainant company. It also shows that a CD of the said software was deposited with the Court and it has been sealed. Undertaking was also given by the accused/defendant in the suit that the said Price Trac Software would not be used nor the software developed by Global Image Factory based on the Price Trac would be sold pending the suit. 4. Taking into consideration the nature of the offence committed by the 4 Cri-A-5657-10.sxw accused, the fact that the complainant company has already filed a suit seeking certain reliefs, in which certain directions are already given by the Court in that suit and also that if the said software is misused by the accused, the complainant itself is in best position to track the same than the Investigating Officer. Custodial interrogation does not appear to be necessary. They can certainly provide the material which may be collected to the Investigating Officer and it can be used for the purpose of investigation and also for filing the charge sheet. In the FIR, it was alleged that the Laptop, Blackberry phone, Vodaphone,credit card etc. were not returned by the accused inspite of repeated demands. The learned counsel for the accused/respondent makes a statement that articles have been returned. In fact, he pointed out from para 8 of the impugned order that the Investigating Officer was not interested in taking charge of the Laptop for the reasons best known to him and when he was asked by the Court to explain why he was not taking custody, then only he took charge of the laptop. As far as the amount of Rs. 9,68,000/- which was spent by the accused during his vist to America as stated above, that amount can be protected by putting certain conditions. Therefore there is no need to interfere in the order granting anticipatory bail. 5. The application for cancellation of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The anticipatory bail shall continue with additional condition that the respondent 5 Cri-A-5657-10.sxw No.1/accused shall be available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required and shall fully co-operate with the investigation. He shall also deposit amount of Rs.5 lakh with the trial Court and shall furnish Bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.4,68,000/- in favour of the trial Court within four weeks. The said amount and the Bank Guarantee shall be subject to the result of the Criminal Case. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)