IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9377/2016 BETWEEN:
MR.ABHISHEK DHORELIYA S/O MR.NRIPENDRA KUMAR DHORELIYA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCC: FOUNDER & CEO, M/S. MARKSCAN R/A.D.266, DEFENCE COLONY NEW DELHI – 110 014.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI LAKSHMIKANTH, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF VIJAYANAGAR POLICE STATION BANGALORE CITY (BEING INVESTIGATED BY THE CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION) REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001.
IMPLEADING APPLICANT:
JERRY JOSEPH S/O T.E.JOSEPH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS AUTHORISED REP. OF AIPLEX SOFTWARE PVT., LTD., NO.2943/E, 1ST FLOOR, OPP. MARUTHI MANDIR, SERVICE ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 040.
...RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.VISHWA MURTHY, HCGP SRI SHAIKH SOUD, ADV., FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.493/2016 OF VIJAYANAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, WHICH IS REGISTRED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 420 OF IPC AND SEC.66(C) OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.493/2016 registered in Vijayanagar Police Station, for offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC and Section 66 (c) of Information Technology Act, 2008.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for the respondent-State and Sri Shaikh Soud, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material papers.
3. By an order dated 16.12.2016 this Court has granted interim bail to the petitioner. Thereafter, he has appeared before the Investigating Officer on several occasions and also written letters to the Investigating Officer undertaking to be present as and when he is called upon. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Investigating Officer has not called him for any further investigation. In the circumstances, he prays that the order of interim bail dated 16.12.2016 has to be made absolute.
4. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent- State opposes the petition on the ground that the offence is serious one touching upon the proprietary rights of a domain ownership on the internet. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
5. Sri Shaikh Soud, learned counsel for the impleading applicant also strongly opposes the bail petition and submits that despite notice having been issued to the petitioner, he is not appearing before the Investigating Officer and resultant position is that the complainant’s Company is suffering as the investigation is getting delayed.
6. It is to be noted that the offences alleged against the petitioner is under Section 66(c) of the Information Technology Act, 2008 and Section 420 of IPC and the maximum punishment upon the conviction is seven years. This Court has already granted interim bail and the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has submitted himself to the jurisdictional Police, but he is not called for investigation.
7. So far the grievance of the impleading applicant is concerned, if the Investigating Officer is not diligently functioning, he may take such further action, as may be advised, in accordance with law.
8. Keeping in view the gravity of offence and the earlier order dated 16.12.2016, coupled with the fact that the petitioner has already appeared before the police, in my view, this petition merits consideration and deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, it is directed that:
(i) In the event of arrest or voluntary surrender of petitioner in Crime No.493/2016 before the jurisdictional Police or Magistrate on or before 13.3.2017, he shall be released on bail upon his executing a self bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer;
(ii) Petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during the further course of investigation and appear as and when called upon;
(iii) Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional Police on every 1st and 3rd Sunday of each calendar month between 10 a.m. & 1 p.m till the charge sheet is filed;
(iv) Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to prosecution witness or any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or investigating officer;
(v) Petitioner shall not involve himself in any criminal activities; and (vi) If the petitioner violates any one of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.
Petition allowed.
In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.NOs.1, 2 and 3 of 2017 are also disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE PB