PAPPU KUMAR Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common order will dispose of the three applications being Bail Appln. 1495/2022, Bail Appln. 1525/2022, Bail Appln. 1574/2022 filed under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail. Since the applications have been filed by three of the accused persons in FIR No.351/2022 registered by the Model Town, Police Station under Sec. 409 read with Sec. 34 IPC, the three applications are being taken up together for disposal.

(2.) The complaint was filed on behalf of Cyber Root Risk Advisory Private Limited (complainant company) through its authorized representative, Mr. Chiranshu Ahuja regarding illegal disclosure and divulgence of their bank records and mishandling of their confidential and sensitive information by the bank which was the Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, JMD Regent Square branch, (Kotak Bank) where the complainant company maintained a current account bearing No.2511468461 along with other accounts for the last six years prior to the registration of the FIR. In June, 2020, the complainant company lost some projects from their existing clients due to pricing and other such issues which could only be revealed from one's bank account statements and other confidential data. On 17/6/2020, the complainant company expressed their concern of illegal leakage, disclosure and divulgence to the bank employees being the accused No. 4 and 5. Reminders had to be issued to the Kotak Bank, who did not respond to the emails of the complainant company. It was only in September, 2020 that the complainant company received a phone call from the Service Relationship Manager from the Kotak Bank informing them that nothing conclusive could be found about the unauthorized access of bank statements/records. When information to this effect was sought in writing the Kotak Bank failed to provide any communication in writing.

(3.) Repeated requests and discussions with the accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 again did not result in any revelation to the complainant company as to how their confidential information could be revealed to third parties. The complainant company, therefore, suspected that the information was illegally disclosed and divulged by the bank officials only. It is further recorded in the FIR that the company's suspicions were confirmed when the statement of the complainant company's bank account was filed by a third party-i.e., the accused No.7 before the United States District Courts for the Middle District of North Carolina, USA. The accused No.7 had falsely represented before that court that the bank statements had been obtained from a 'whistle-blower" who was employed by the complainant company and who had legitimate access to the company's bank account. Since the complainant company had not issued any instruction or request for generation of a bank statement for the period of 1/4/2016 to 1/7/2020, it was apparent to them that somebody else leaked the information with the aid and collusion with the Kotak Bank officials to provide illegal benefits to the accused No.7.