Karnataka High Court
Mr Girish Kumar N vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25 May, 2017
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3958 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
MR GIRISH KUMAR N
AGE 44 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: IP RIGHTS BUSINESS
HAVING RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS AT FLAT #304,
AMOR APARTMENTS, PLOT #316,
9TH MAIN, 10TH CROSS,
RAJARJAESHWARI NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 098.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri: GANGADHARAIAH A N, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AT THE INSTANCE OF
KHERWADI POLICE STATION
IN MECR NO.1 OF 2017 BANDRA EAST,
MUMBAI - 400051
MAHARASHTRA.
2. THE STATE BY RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA
2
POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
BENGALURU - 560 098
KARNATAKA.
REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU.
3. SHRI JAIDEV RAJNIKANT SHROFF
BRITISH NATIONAL, GLOBAL CEO OF UPL, 4,
SERVICE ROAD, TEACHERS COLONY,
SIDDHARTH NAGAR, BANDRA (EAST)
MUMBAI - 400 051
MAHARASHTRA.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri: K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT
TRANSIT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN THE
EVENT OF HIS ARREST BY THE 1st RESPONDENT POLICE IN
CONNECDTION WITH FIR BEING MECR NO.1/2017 REGISTERED
AT KHERWADI P.S., BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA
U/S 384,504,506(II),120B OF IPC AND SEC.66 OF I.T ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3
ORDER
This petitioner claims to be the Managing Director of Aiplex software Private Limited which is an online antipiracy company headquartered in Bengaluru. According to the petitioner, On 4.11.2016, he was introduced to one Mrs.Poonam Bhagat Shroff through one of their connection requesting the petitioner to delete Youtube URLs that contained derogatory and defamatory videos of Mrs.Poonam Bhagat Shroff. The petitioner through his company Aiplex, pursuant to the aforesaid request of Mrs.Poonam Bhagat Shroff, deleted the following two URLs from the website www.youtube.com. It is stated that during the said period, the said Mrs.Poonam Bhagat Shroff informed the petitioner about the ongoing divorce petition between her and the third respondent. According to the petitioner, and hence, the third respondent taking note of the fact that the petitioner did work for Mrs.Poonam Bhagat Shroff has filed a false complaint before the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.70/SW/2017 making various imaginary allegations which are no way connected to the petitioner. It is further stated that the 4 Metropolitan Magistrate 32nd Court at Bandra, Mumbai vide order dated 16.3.2017 has directed the respondent No.1 i.e., Kherwadi Police Station, Mumbai to register a F.I.R. under sections 384, 506(II), 504 and 120B of Indian Penal Code and section 66 of IT Act, 2000 and the petitioner is therefore apprehending his arrest through the second respondent and hence, the petitioner has sought for transit anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by the first respondent Police in connection with F.I.R. in MECR No.1/2017 registered at Kherwadi Police Station, Bhandra East, Mumbai, for the aforesaid offences.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the F.I.R. and the allegations made in the complaint wherein it is alleged that at the instance of the wife of the third respondent namely Mrs.Poonam Bhagat Shroff with whom the third respondent is engaged in a divorce proceedings, the petitioner has hacked the Wikipedia profile of Ms.Natalia Kapchuk and internet account and posted illegal, defamatory and derogatory material about respondent No.3 and made random calls and threatened to kill him and his children and demanded 5 extortion of Rs.5 Crores for not doing the same by making call on 9.3.2017.
3. Regarding the maintainability of the petition before this Court, learned counsel has referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Dr.L.R.NAIDU vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 1984 CRI.L.J. 757 and the decision of the Delhi High Court in Capt.SATISH KUMAR SHARMA vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION & Others, 1991 CRI.L.J. 950 wherein it is held that section 438 of Cr.P.C., is wide enough to confer jurisdiction not only to the High Court or the Court of Sessions within whose territorial jurisdiction the offence has been committed and is to be enquired into and tried but also the High Court or the Court of Sessions where a person has reason to believe that he may be arrested in connection with the commission of non-bailable offence. In the aforesaid decisions the High Court of Karnataka and the High Court of Delhi have considered the decisions rendered by various other High Courts on the subject and have held that the jurisdiction relating to cognizance of an offence and that of granting of bail are entirely 6 different. Bails are against arrest and detention. Therefore, the appropriate court within whose jurisdiction the arrest takes place or is apprehended or is contemplated will also have jurisdiction to grant bail to the person concerned. The proposition laid down in the above decisions leave no manner of doubt about the jurisdiction of this Court to grant an order of anticipatory bail under section 438 of Cr.P.C., if the petitioner is otherwise entitled thereto.
4. On going through the allegations made against the petitioner, I find that the apprehension voiced by the petitioner is well founded. The petitioner has made a clean breast of the fact that at the instance of the wife of the third respondent, he has deleted the offending URLs from the website of www.youtube.com in the course of his official business. As the allegations made in the complaint relate to the said incident, the grant of bail would only facilitate the Investigating Agency to expedite the investigation. No doubt there are allegations of criminal intimidation and extortion, but solely on account of the said allegations, the police machinery cannot be allowed to 7 intermeddle with the liberties of the petitioner on the guise of conducting investigation into the allegations made against the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BHADRESH BIPINBHAI SHETH vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & Others, (2016) 1 SCC 152 has reiterated the principles for grant of anticipatory bail. On evaluating the entire material available on record on the touchstone of the parameters laid down in the above decisions, this Court is of the view that grant of anticipatory bail in the instant case would not any way prejudice the investigation, on the other hand, it would prevent harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the petitioner.
5. Hence, dispensing with the notice to the respondent No.3, the petition is allowed with the following order:
(i) In the event of the arrest of the
petitioner by respondent Nos.1 and 2 or by
whomsoever concerned in regard to MECR
No.1/2017 registered at Kherwadi Police Station, Bhandra East for the offences under sections 384, 504, 506(II), 120-B of Indian Penal Code and section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the 8 petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on obtaining a bond for Rs.3,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned.
(ii) In order to expedite the investigation, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer in the aforesaid MECR No.1/2017 within 15 days from the date of this order and on his appearance, the Investigating Officer shall interrogate the petitioner and shall enlarge him on bail on the same day on obtaining the bond and the surety as stated above.
(iii) The petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.
(iv) The petitioner shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bss.