Sns 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.22 OF 2011 Srinivas S. Vekatram ..Applicant. v/s. Sagar M. Kale and Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Ashish Sawant, adv. for the Applicant. Ms P.P.Shinde, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 4th October, 2011 PC : 1 The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is graduate from IIT, Mumbai and IIM from Ahmedabad. He had incorporated company by name Illumine Knowledge Resources Pvt. Ltd. and developed certain new research solutions to some pressing problems in Education, Learning and Knowledge. One Amol Parkhe and the respondent no.1 were employees of the applicant. It was revealed that said Amol misused the data developed by the applicant and was using the same by name "Translabs" . On the report lodged by the complainant, Crime No. 28/2010 was registered with Cyber Crime Cell against Amol Parkhe. It is contended that Amol Parkhe has passed information to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 by E-Mail. Respondents apprehending arrest moved an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, Greater Bombay. Sns 2 Anticipatory bail was granted by the order dated 30th November, 2010. By the application, the applicant wants the said order of anticipatory bail passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay to be cancelled. 2 Admittedly, the said Amol Parkhe was refused anticipatory bail and he has moved the Supreme Court and as per the order of the Supreme Court, he has been granted ad-interim anticipatory bail and the matter is still pending for final hearing before the Supreme Court. On 13th September, 2011, the learned counsel for the applicant had taken adjournment on the ground that in the connected matter in the Supreme Court, the accused Amol Parkhe had made a statement that he would be handing over complete data to the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant makes a statement that the matter is still pending before the Supreme Court. In view of the fact that the main accused, who had allegedly misused the information and data of the applicant has been granted anticipatory bail, it does not appear to be the case where the custodial interrogation of the respondents will be necessary. Respondents are on anticipatory bail since November, 2010. This application is also pending for the last about eight months. It appears that the applicant wants this application to remain pending to extract information from the respondents. That can not be ground for cancellation of anticipatory bail. 3 Therefore, this application stands rejected. Sns 3 (J.H.BHATIA, J.)