KABC010090212024
IN THE COURT OF LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-66)
PRESENT
SHRI. HEMANTH KUMAR. C.R ,
B.A.L., L.L.B.,
LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 4 th day of April, 2024
Crl.Misc.No.3202/2024
PETITIONER/S:-
SRI. VIJAYAN PARTHASARATHY,
s/o Parthasarathy.
Aged about 43 years,
R/at No.118, Skylark Enclave,
5th Main, Near BEML Hospital,
Jagadish Nagar, Bengaluru North,
Bengaluru -560075.
(By Sri.RR., Advocate)
V/s.

RESPONDENT:-
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
By South East CEN Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep. by Public Prosecutor)
*****
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED UNDER
SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C
This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking
anticipatory bail to the petitioner in Crime No.1600/2023 registered by
2
Crl.Misc.No.3202/2024
the respondent South East CEN police for the offences punishable
under Sections 66 and 43 of Information Technology Act.
2.

Brief facts of the case.-
The complainant one Mainak Sarkar has been the Co-founder
and CEO of M/s.Explorex Techonologies Pvt. Ltd., has lodged the
complaint alleging that his company provides full stack solutions to
restaurants and helps in restaurants reservation and queque
management. ReserveGo is a direct competitor of one of the flagship
products ‘FOH’ which is involved in similar business operations. The
accused No.1 was working in the complainant company as Co-Head in
sales and she well aware regarding the company software product and
its features and also the data of customers, competitors, also the
launch of flagship product belonging to the complainant which would
be launched in the next year. On 12.12.2023 of the customers had
called the complainant alleging that there was mis-match of the
expectations of the software product which is when the complainant
had met the customer and had found that the accused No.1 was
involved in selling the customers the competitor product when she was
employed with the complainant company and also further alleged that
the accused No.2 has launched a software product which is similar to
that of the complainant software and the accused No.1 and 2 have
conspired to take the confidential data of the company thereby the
company of the complainant had suffered loss. Alleging the same the
complainant has lodged the complaint. The police on receipt of the
complaint have registered a case in Crime No.1600/2023 for the
offences punishable under Sections 66 and 43 of Information
Technology Act.

3
3.

Crl.Misc.No.3202/2024
The petitioner being aggrieved by the same has preferred
this bail petition on the following among other grounds. The petitioner
submits that the entire averments of the complaint it is clear allegation
of selling the software to others is against the accused No.1 who was
employed as a sales manager in the complainant company and the
accused No.2 has no nexus whatsoever with the accused No.1 or the
complainant company and the complainant has impleaded the
petitioner / accused No.2 in a vexatious manner since the petitioner is
also owner of the company which is involved in providing similar
services as that of the complainant company. The petitioner submits
that the allegation in the complaint is that the accused No.1 without the
knowledge of the complainant company had sold the software product
that belongs to the petitioner company to the customers of the
complainant company, hence if the entire averments of the
complainant are believed to be true at no stretch of imagination the
petitioner has made prima facie any offences under Section 43 of the
Information Technology Act. The petitioner submits that he is innocent
of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated in the case
at the instance of the vested interests. The petitioner submits that he
hails from respectable family and having deep roots in the society and
the offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with
imprisonment for life or death. The petitioner submits that he is ready
and willing to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this court
and also co-operate with the investigation. Hence, prays to allow the
bail petition.
4.

After service of notice, the learned Public Prosecutor has
appeared and filed objections contending that the offences alleged
against the petitioner are grievous in nature and also has further
4
Crl.Misc.No.3202/2024
contended that the complaint averments prima facie shows that the
petitioner is involved in the alleged offences.

The learned Public
Prosecutor has also further contended that the investigation is still in
progress and at this stage if the bail petition of the petitioner allowed
there is every chances of the petitioner threatening the prosecution
witnesses, destroying the evidence, abscond and hamper the trial.
Hence, prays to reject the bail petition.
5.

Heard the arguments. Now the points that arise for my
consideration.-
6.

1.

Whether the petitioner has made out
sufficient ground to allow the petition
filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C?

2.

What order?
My answer to the above points are.Point No.1:–
In the Negative
Point No.2:–
As per final order
for the following
REASONS
7.

Point No.1:-
The petitioner counsel has addressed the
arguments contending that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged
offences and the entire averments of the complaint it is clear allegation
of selling the software to others is against the accused No.1 who was
employed as a sales manager in the complainant company and the
accused No.2 has no nexus whatsoever with the accused No.1 or the
complainant company and the complainant has impleaded the
petitioner / accused No.2 in a vexatious manner since the petitioner is
also owner of the company which is involved in providing similar
services as that of the complainant company. The petitioner counsel
5
Crl.Misc.No.3202/2024
has also further contended that the allegation in the complaint is that
the accused No.1 without the knowledge of the complainant company
had sold the software product that belongs to the petitioner company
to the customers of the complainant company, hence if the entire
averments of the complainant are believed to be true at no stretch of
imagination the petitioner has made prima facie any offences under
Section 43 of the Information Technology Act. The petitioner counsel
has also further contended that the offences alleged against the
petitioner are not punishable with imprisonment for life or death and
the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions
imposed by this court and also co-operate with the investigation.
Hence, prays to allow the bail petition.
8.

The learned Public Prosecutor has addressed the
arguments contending that the offences alleged against the petitioner
are grievous in nature and also has further contended that the
complaint averments prima facie shows that the petitioner is involved
in the alleged offences.

The learned Public Prosecutor has also
further contended that the investigation is still in progress and at this
stage if the bail petition of the petitioner allowed there is every chances
of the petitioner threatening the prosecution witnesses, destroying the
evidence, abscond and hamper the trial. Hence, prays to reject the
bail petition.
9.

On perusal of the complaint averments it is noticed that
the complainant one Mainak Sarkar has been the Co-founder and
CEO of M/s.Explorex Techonologies Pvt. Ltd., has lodged the
complaint alleging that his company provides full stack solutions to
restaurants and helps in restaurants reservation and queque
6
Crl.Misc.No.3202/2024
management. ReserveGo is a direct competitor of one of the flagship
products ‘FOH’ which is involved in similar business operations. The
accused had joined the company on 18.04.2023 as Co-Head in sales
as an employee and she has signed offer letter, HR policy and other
documents and she has full knowledge of the software product and its
features and also had data of competitors and product and company
mission and vision during her role with the company and they
discussed the ideation and launch of their flagship product which will
be launching next year and she has also aware of the road map for the
next two years. The complainant has lodged the complaint that one of
the customers called them on 12.12.2023 to discuss with the concern
of mis-match of expectation of the product which was sold to them and
he went to meet him and at that time he has got to know that she is
involved in selling the customer one of their company product when
she is employed with the complainant and she is involved in the sales
since the beginning and during full time employee at M/s.Explorex
Techonologies Pvt. Ltd., The customer has also provided couple of
emails dated 31.08.2023 and 05.09.2023 and also whatsApp group
screen shot with company namely M/s.ReserveGo where the accused
was part of that organization as an Admin of the group and founder
which Mr.Vijayan Parthasarathy the accused No.2. The petitioner was
introducing the software which is similar to the complainant product
and providing to the accused No.2 which is illegal. Alleging the same
the complainant has lodged the complaint. On perusal of the records
it is noticed that
the police on receipt of the said complaint have
registered a case in Crime No.1600/2023 for the offences punishable
under Sections 66 and 43 of Information Technology Act. On perusal
of the records it is noticed that the offences alleged against the
petitioner are bailable in nature. The petitioner has contended that he
7
Crl.Misc.No.3202/2024
is innocent of the alleged offences and he is ready and willing to abide
by the terms and conditions imposed by this court and also co-operate
with the investigation.

The learned Public Prosecutor has filed
objections contending that the offences alleged against the petitioners
are under Sections 66, 43 of Information Technology Act and the said
offences is bailable in nature as such the present bail petition is filed
by the petitioner is not maintainable. On perusal of the records it is
noticed that the offences alleged against the petitioner are
under
Sections 66, 43 of Information Technology Act, as the said offences
alleged are bailable in nature as such the present petition filed by the
petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is not maintainable.

The
petitioner is at liberty to approach the trial court seeking bail and the
trial court shall considered the bail application filed by the petitioner on
the same day as the offences alleged are bailable in nature. In view of
the said observation, the petitioner has not made out sufficient grounds
to allow the bail petition. Accordingly, I answer the point No.1 in the
‘ANegative’.
10.

Point No.2:- In view of the findings given on point No.1,
I proceed to pass the following.ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner
under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is hereby
dismissed.
(Directly dictated to the Stenographer online computer, typed by her, corrected and then
pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 4th day of April, 2024)
(HEMANTH KUMAR. C.R)
LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.