SUJAY SEN GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him under Sections 43, 66, 66B and 72A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 420, 406, 120 IPC at Police Station Udyog Bihar, Gurgaon, District Gurgaon, vide FIR No.58 dated 9th April, 2011.

(2.) Learned counsel for the parties have addressed the court at length.

(3.) Mr. Aggarwal, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner mainly submitted before the court that offences alleged are not of such nature which require custodial interrogation of petitioner. According to him, Information Technology Act, 2000 contains necessary provisions for dealing with offences of this kind. The said Act envisages payment of damages and penalty. Punishment being less than three years, same are bailable. According to him, the question of cheating or breach of trust does not arise as petitioner was entitled to use the knowledge acquired by him in the manner he liked. He has placed reliance on order passed by this court in Satinderjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-20966 of 2010, decided on February 28, 2011. He emphasized that a co-accused Saurabh Gupta has been granted a similar concession by the court below, besides co-accused Yajana Prakash was allowed to go abroad during pendency of investigation. Thus, investigating agency does not require the petitioner for custodial interrogation. He urged that information, which the petitioner is alleged to have parted with, was in fact in public domain as the same was on the website of the company. Only because the petitioner was offering competition to complainant company, false allegations have been levelled against him.