Mr Girish Kumar N vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25 May, 2017

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.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *