KABC010081902024 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 1 st day of April, 2024 Crl.Misc.No.2915/2024 PETITIONER/S:- SNEHAL DESAI, d/o Prakash Desai, Aged about 34 years, R/at 1st Floor, Annapurna, 1st Main, G.M. Palya, Bengaluru. (By Sri.PM., 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.2915/2024 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 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 3 Crl.Misc.No.2915/2024 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. 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. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same has preferred

this bail petition on the following among other grounds. The petitioner submits that she is innocent of the alleged offences and the offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with imprisonment for life or death. The petitioner submits that the complainant is colluding with the respondent police and trying to implicate the petitioner in the false criminal case and the petitioner has not involved in the alleged offences. The petitioner submits that she is the employee of the complainant' company, the accused No.2 company M/s.ReserveGo is dealing with the other products nor the same product which the complainant company is selling. Being a sale department petitioner always is faithful to the company and never disclosed any computer datas to the accused No.2. The petitioner submits that she has not committed any offences as alleged in the complaint and she is permanent resident of Bengaluru and she hails from respectable family and having deep roots in the society. The petitioner submits that she 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.2915/2024 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.-

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

2. What order?

6. 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 has not committed any offences as alleged in the complaint and the complainant is colluding with the respondent police and trying to implicate the petitioner in the false criminal case and the petitioner has not involved in the alleged offences. The petitioner counsel has also further contended that the petitioner is the employee of the complainant' company, the accused No.2 company M/s.ReserveGo is dealing with the other products nor the same product which the complainant company is selling. Being a sale 5 Crl.Misc.No.2915/2024 department petitioner always is faithful to the company and never disclosed any computer datas to the accused No.2. The petitioner counsel has 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 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 6 Crl.Misc.No.2915/2024 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 she is innocent of the alleged offences and she 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 7 Crl.Misc.No.2915/2024 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. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 1st day of April, 2024) (HEMANTH KUMAR. C.R) LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.