IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2681 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
1. M/s.Gameskraft Technologies Pvt.Ltd., Having its office at No.147, 4th floor, Lakshmi Chambers, 6th sector, HSR Layout, Bengaluru-560 102. Represented by its Directors.
2. Mr.Deepak Singh, S/o Gajendra Singh Age 32 year, R/at B-904, Mantri Sarovar, Agara Village, HSR Layout, Bengaluru-560 102.
Director, M/s Gameskraft Technologies Pvt.Ltd., 3. Mr.Prithvi Raj Singh, S/o Diwan Singh Age 34 years, R/at P1/28-29, Sethi Enclave, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, West Delhi-110 059.
Director, M/s Gameskraft Technologies Pvt.Ltd., 4. Mr.Ramesh Prabhu S/o Sadananda N Prabhu, R/at Flat No.B-304, Victory Harmony, SSA Road, Hebbal, Bengaluru-560 032 CFO, M/s Gameskraft Technologies Pvt.,Ltd., (By Sri.Hasmath Pasha, Senior Counsel for Sri.Sunil.P.P, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Maharashtra, By the Inspector of Police, Bangur Nagar Police Station, Malad West, Mumbai-400 064.
2. The State of Karnataka, By ‘HSR Layout Police’, Bengaluru.
...Petitioners Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru-560 001 (By Sri. M.Divakar Maddur, HCGP) ... Respondents This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.33/2019 of Bangur Nagar Police Station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and Section 66 read with 43, 66(B) of the Information Technology Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R This petition has been filed by the petitioners No.1 to 4 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to release them on anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest by Inspector of police Bangur Nagar Police Station, Malad West Mumbai in Crime No.33/2019 of Bangur Nagar Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Section 379 of IPC and also under Section 66 read with 43, 66(B) of the Information Technology Act.
2. I have heard the learned senior counsel Sri.Hasmath Pasha, for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that, the complainant-company during December, 2017 came to know that the petitioner-Company under the provisions of Company’s Act has registered and by creating another website by name www.rummyculture.com offering similar online services to play the rummy game online. Thereafter, they got the detailed information and came to know that the domain of complainant- company has been used and the play has been provided through their website and thereby they have committed alleged offence under Section 379 of IPC and also under Section 66 read with 43, 66(B) of Information Technology Act. On the basis of the said complaint, the case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel that the petitioners-accused have neither stolen any sources nor any other information as alleged in the complaint. The sources which have been used for the purpose of said rummy play is different, though the game which is going to be played is one and the same. He further submitted that under the modern technology, the use of technology the sources have been secured by the accused-petitioner and have created a new website and thereafter they have used after registering the company under the Company’s Act. He further submitted that already the respondent-police have served the notice under Section 41(A)(1) of Cr.P.C to appear before them for the purpose of interrogation and investigation. The petitioner-accused apprehends that if they go for co-operating the investigation, police may likely to arrest the accused-petitioner being the partners of the said company.
5. He further submitted that they are ready to co-operate with the investigation. The alleged offences under Information Technology Act are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, even so also under Indian Penal Code. They are ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. He further submitted that in order to go and appear before the investigating officer the transit bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioners accused on bail.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that petitioners-accused have been asked to appear before the investigating officer under Section 41(A)(1) of Cr.P.C for the purpose of investigation and interrogation, there is no apprehension of the accused being apprehended and there are no good grounds to entertain the said application and same is liable to be dismissed.
7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for parties and perused the records.
8. It is well settled proposition of law that though the alleged offence has not taken place within the jurisdiction of this Court, this Court can grant bail though it has no jurisdiction. This proposition of law has been laid down by this Court in the case of B.R.Sinha Vs. State reported in 1982 Cri.L.J 61 and another case in Pritham Singh V/s State of Punjab reported in 1981 Cri.L.J NOC 59. It is also well settled proposition of law in the above decisions that it would not be impermissible for the Court of one State to grant anticipatory bail, if the petitioner resides within its jurisdiction, in respect of apprehended arrest in a case pending in some other state, without the jurisdiction of the Court that he can seek bail by this Court. Whether the petitioners are involved in the alleged crime that is the matter which has to be considered and appreciated by the jurisdictional Court. As could be seen from the records, the respondent-police has issued notice under Section 41 (A)(1) of Cr.P.C calling upon the petitioners to appear before them for the purpose of investigation and interrogation. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel that police may apprehend when petitioners co-operating with investigation and interrogation. When there is an apprehension, that they are likely to be arrested in such circumstances, anticipatory bail can be granted for a limited purpose and the accused-petitioner want to go and appear before the investigating officer. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I feel that the accused-petitioners have made out a case to grant the transit bail for a limited period.
9. In the light of the discussion held above, the petition is allowed. The petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 herein are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.33/2019 of Bangur Nagar Police Station, Mumbai, for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and Section 66 read with 43, 66(B) of the Information Technology Act, subject to the following conditions:
1. Each of the petitioners shall execute personal bond for a sum of `2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
2. They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
3. They shall co-operate with the investigation and they should appear before the investigating officer as and when they are ordered to do so.
4. They shall appear before the jurisdictional Court within 15 days from today or within 15 days from the date of their arrest by the concerned police which ever is earlier.
If the petitioners move application for bail before the jurisdictional Court the same may be considered in accordance with law without being any way influenced by the observations made by this court during the course of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE ag