The Court of the LXV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-66), presided over by Sri Hemanth Kumar C.R., B.A.L., LL.B., delivered a judicial order on April 1, 2024, dismissing an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The ruling in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2915/2024 pertained to Sneha Desai, who sought pre-arrest bail protection in connection with Crime No. 1600/2023 registered by the South East CEN Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioner faced allegations involving cyber offences punishable under Sections 66 (computer-related offences) and 43 (penalty for damage to computer systems, data, etc.) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The criminal proceedings originated from a detailed complaint lodged by Mainak Sarkar, Co-founder and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of M/s. Explorex Technologies Pvt. Ltd. According to the prosecution case set out in the complaint, the company provides full-stack solutions and queue management software for restaurants, competing directly with rival products such as ReserveGo. The petitioner had joined Explorex Technologies on April 18, 2023, as Co-Head of Sales, executing employment agreements, HR policies, and non-disclosure documents. In her capacity, she had comprehensive access to proprietary software features, competitor data, product roadmaps, and future launch strategies.
The grievance arose when a company client contacted management on December 12, 2023, regarding a product expectation mismatch. During discussions, the client revealed that the petitioner had been actively promoting and selling competing software products from M/s. ReserveGo (founded by Accused No. 2, Vijayan Parthasarathy) while remaining on the active payroll of Explorex Technologies. The client furnished incriminating emails dated August 31, 2023, and September 5, 2023, alongside WhatsApp group screenshots demonstrating that the petitioner served as an administrator of a messaging group alongside the rival founder, illegally utilizing company data and introducing competing software to clients. Following these disclosures, the South East CEN Police registered Crime No. 1600/2023 under Sections 66 and 43 of the IT Act.
Seeking anticipatory bail, the 34-year-old petitioner approached the Sessions Court through her legal counsel, asserting complete innocence and maintaining that she was being falsely implicated due to a commercial dispute. The defense contended that as an employee in the sales department, she remained faithful to her employer, never disclosed confidential computer data to competing entities, and that the offences alleged did not carry capital punishment or life imprisonment.
The bail application was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, who filed formal written objections arguing that the complaint materials prima facie established the petitioner’s active involvement in data breach, corporate espionage, and unauthorized sharing of proprietary business intelligence with direct competitors during her active employment.
Upon evaluating the submissions and examining the statutory provisions, Judge Hemanth Kumar C.R. addressed the core point for consideration regarding the maintainability of an anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for offences categorized under the Information Technology Act. The court noted that the specific offences invoked against the petitioner under Sections 66 and 43 of the IT Act are bailable in nature.
Relying on the legal premise that an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is legally untenable when the underlying penal provisions are bailable, the Sessions Court held that the petition was not maintainable. However, the court clarified that the petitioner enjoyed the liberty to approach the jurisdictional trial court directly seeking regular bail, and directed that any such application be considered and disposed of on the same day given the bailable character of the alleged offences.
Consequently, the Sessions Court answered the point for consideration in the negative and ordered that the anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by Sneha Desai in Crime No. 1600/2023 of South East CEN Police Station is dismissed.