Sujay Sen Gupta v. State of Haryana

Titiksha SethCase Summary

Sujay Sen Gupta v. State of Haryana

Sujay Sen Gupta v State of Haryana
In the Punjab & Haryana High Court
CRM-M 4365/2012 (O&M)
Before Justice Rajan Gupta
Decided on March 06, 2012

Relevancy of the case: Downloading and transmitting data from a computer for dishonest purposes.

Statutes & Provisions Involved

  • The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 43, 66, 66B, 72A)
  • The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 438)
  • The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 120, 420, 406)

Relevant Facts of the Case

  • The Petitioner was the president of the Global Market Research Division of the complainant M/s Technova India Pvt. Ltd. Hence, he had access to highly confidential information such as the business models, client database and strategies.
  • Petitioner along with the co-accused Yajana Prakash misappropriated confidential proprietary information for business diversion to entities like “CATALISE” and “CIBC”, consequently causing a huge loss to the complainant company.
  • Furthermore, the petitioner and another accomplice, Ritesh Dudeja defrauded the complainant by establishing a new company and owning substantial shares in it. The prosecution had furnished email proof to show the same.
  • Therefore, the complainant filed an FIR and the investigation was transferred to the Economic Offences Wing of the Gurgaon Police, which sought a custodial investigation of the petitioner. The petitioner here has applied for pre-arrest bail.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

  • The petitioner’s counsel argued that the offences alleged don’t require custodial interrogation. Furthermore, the IT Act has the necessary provisions for dealing with the offences.

Opinion of the Bench

  • The bench emphasized the need for a custodial interrogation since it believed that the accused is not likely to cooperate if armed with a protective order. In addition, this interrogation could elicit how the accused downloaded and leaked confidential information.
  • The bench also viewed that the petitioner’s prayer was meritless.

Final Decision

  • The bench rejected the bail application.

इस केस सारांश को हिंदी में पढ़ने के लिए यहाँ क्लिक करें। | To read this case summary in Hindi, click here.