New Delhi, May 18 (ILNS): The Supreme Court has denied anticipatory bail to a former employee of a tech company accused of stealing the technology and using the same by forming a company under the name of FourModules.com.
A divisional bench of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Aniruddha Bose noted: “The High Court has categorically observed that the custodial interrogation of Jagjeet Singh is required.”
The bench while dismissing the anticipatory bail application noted, “The learned High court has categorically observed that the custodial interrogation of Jagjeet is required. We have carefully examined the matter in totality. We even have perused injunction order we deem it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.”
The anticipatory bail application has been filed by Jagjeet Singh founder of FourModules.com and former employee of Webrosoft Solutions Private Limited challenging the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and seeking anticipatory bail. Singh is accused of forming a company under the brand name of “Fourmodules.in/Fourmodules.com” and providing software with similar look and use as that of the complainant.
An First Information Report was registered under Sections 406, 408, 379, 381, 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 43, 66, 66-B of the I.T. Act, 2000 on the ground that the web applications used by the accused were identical to the same of the files of the complainant.
Senior Advocate, Siddharth Aggarwal appearing for the applicant relied upon ratio laid down in case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, while seeking protection from arrest, submitted that such guidelines was only restricted in 498a cases, but also, in those offences as well, where the punishment is upto 7 years or more.
Aggarwal further argued that complainant is not leading with the summoning evidence in a prior case instituted by him on similar allegations which is pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana in the year 2019.
“Your Lordship, section 77B of Information Technology act specifically states that offences punishable with 3 years of imprisonment and above under the IT Act shall be cognizable and all offences punishable with imprisonment of 3 (three) years or less shall be bailable. I Don’t see why IPC provisions are invoked against Jagjeet. IT Act is a special law, and it should prevail over IPC”, Aggarwal added.
However, Justice Dinesh said, “Sir, IPC Provisions are there, and they are there for some reasons. Do you say section 381 of IPC is not made out against petitioner? Mr. counsel, Section 381 says theft being done by clerk or servant of property in possession of master”, to which, Aggarwal contended that the charges have been imposed upon me based upon the forensic report. ILNS/GM/SS/KY