Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. The only claim of the prosecution is that they need the Laptop and the Mobile Phone to ascertain whether any Data was indeed transferred. However, the Laptop has already been handed over and there is nothing This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/07/2024 at 21:50:40 more to be handed over by the petitioner. It is further argued that according to the prosecution it is a case of data theft, which was essentially effected by the petitioner through the emails. All the details of the emails of the petitioner have already been given in writing and the passwords have also been disclosed for the I.O to conduct a thorough investigations. Furthermore, there are no prima facie case of 406 and 409 of IPC is made out against the petitioner.

11. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Thomas Klaus Eschner vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Anticipatory Bail Appl.No.3270 of 2023 decided by High Court of Judicator at Bombay decided on 01.07.2024 to argue that in the similar facts of data theft by an employee, it was observed by the Bombay High Court that the implication of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 408 IPC appeared contestable as the applicant cannot be said to be entrusted with data since he had parted ways with the Company much prior to the date when the dispute arose between the members of the family owning the Company. In a situation of this nature, whether there were elements of deceit coupled with injury so as to constitute an offence of cheating under Section 420 qua the petitioner also appears debatable.

13. Learned Prosecutor on behalf of the State has argued that there is recovery of laptop and other material to be effected from the petitioner, in order to establish the data theft. The petitioner has not been cooperative during investigations and has been evasive in his endeavours. There are serious allegations of forgery, data theft and of breach of trust and of unauthorized access to the date of the Company for which custodial interrogation is imperative and the petitioner cannot be granted Anticipatory Bail.

17. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently submitted that the judgment of Thomas Klaus Eschner (Supra) relied upon by the petitioner is totally misplaced in so much as in the said case the dispute had arisen about transfer of data after the accused had left the job, while in the present case the data theft has happened when the petitioner was in the active employment of the complainant Company.