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.