State v. Rajesh Gosain
In the High Court of Delhi
Crl. M.C. 1635/2013
Before Justice Sunita Gupta
Decided on February 7, 2014

Relevancy of the case: Anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations related to corporate data theft

Statutes & Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66, 66C)
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 438, 439, 482)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 420, 408, 120B)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The complainant’s company was working as a trading agency to act as a mediator between the Indian manufactures and foreign buyers. The respondents were employees in the complainant’s company.
• An FIR was lodged by the respondents against the petitioner on 01-08-2011 due to the apprehension of false charge on the respondents.
• FIR No. 154/2011 was registered on 19-08-2011 by the complainant who alleged that respondents stole data from e-mails, network and the computer system of the company by unauthorised means. The respondents were also accused of possessing wrongly the confidential and sensitive data entrusted to the accused by the company. The data was taken through pen drives and hard disks
• The Additional Sessions Judge has granted anticipatory bail to the respondents on 26-02-2013.
• The petitioner had filed a petition to set aside the order made on February 26, 2013, where the anticipatory bail was granted to the respondent in the FIR No. 154/2011.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

The petitioner’s counsels:

• The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the accused used the stolen data in their newly formed company. From the raids conducted in the office premises of the respondents, several laptops, CDs and hard disks were seized. On 28-08-2012, the seized data was sent to CFSL for analysis and comparison. As per CFSL’s report, the respondent company had data of the petitioner’s company which it was not supposed to keep. The pen drive or hard disk through which the respondents used to take the data is still in their possession and need to be recovered.
• During the investigation, it was found that the respondent’s company dealt with clients of the petitioner’s company during the respondent’s employment. It was argued that in cases involving Information Technology as a mode of transfer, the custodial interrogation of accused should be done.

The respondents’ counsel:

• The respondents fully cooperated with the investigation and the FIR has been registered under the category of a bailable offence. The anticipatory bail was granted on 26-02-2013 with the view that the respondents will cooperate with the investigation. It was also submitted that in cases of cyber crimes, the investigating officers need not necessarily take the accused person in the custody for interrogation.

Opinion of the Bench

• The respondents were not only joining the investigation but also cooperating during the investigation. Hence, the order cannot be set aside. According to the case of Sidharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694, it was observed that if the accused is cooperating in the investigation and if he is not likely to abscond, then custodial interrogation should be avoided.

Final Decision

• The court held that the order of the Trial Court granting anticipatory bail to the respondents will be preserved and there are no circumstances for the cancellation of the bail.
• The petition and pending applications, if any, are dismissed.

This case summary has been prepared by Afsana Khan, an undergraduate student at Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad, during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in June/July 2020.