The main legal point established in the judgment is that custodial interrogation should be avoided when the accused is cooperating with the investigating agency and is not likely to abscond. Additionally, overwhelming circumstances are necessary for cancellation of bail.

Sunita Gupta, J.

1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose of Crl.M.C. No.1635/2013, Crl.M.C. No. 1012/2013 and Crl.M.C. No. 1022/2013 as Crl.M.C. No. 1635/2013 has been filed by the State u/s 482 Cr.PC. r/w Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. seeking setting aside of order dated 26th February, 2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi whereby the respondents were granted anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 154/2011 registered at PS Economic Offences Wing u/s 66/66C Information Technology Act, 2000 r/w Section 408/420/120B/IPC whereas Crl.M.C.No.1012/2013 and Crl. M.C.No.1022/2013 have been filed by the complainant against respondent No. 2 seeking the same relief. For the sake of convenience, I shall take up Crl.M.C. No.1635/2013 filed by the State.

2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that FIR No.154/2011 came to be registered on the complaint of Mr. Vijay Govind Saxena, General Manager (HR), M/s. Vogueserv International Pvt. Ltd. alleging that their ex-employees, namely, Mr. Rajesh Gosain, Mr. Alok Gupta, Mr. Abhishek Arvind and Mr. Mohit Kothiwal had committed theft of data by way of unauthorised access to the computer system, network and e-mails of the company and also took wrongful possession of sensitive and confidential information entrusted to them in their capacity. It was further alleged that the aforesaid persons diverted business from Vogueserv International Pvt. Ltd. to their newly formed company.

2.2. During the course of investigation, raids were conducted at the residential as well as office premises of the Respondents. From Respondent No.1 two hard discs, one laptop, five mobile phones, three CDs and seven DVDs were seized. From Respondent No.2 one hard disc, and from their office located at 101, Kundan Kutir, Ashram Chowk two laptops and one mobile phone were seized.

2.3. The data so seized was sent to the CFSL on 27.8.2012. The CFSL provided its report in respect of the said data on 26.1.2013. On comparison and analysis of the data recovered from the various exhibits sent to the CFSL, it is found that certain data belonged to the complainant company and should not have been present in the system of the accused persons.

2.4. It is evident that the accused persons had copied the information through pen drive or external hard disc from the system of the complainant company to their personal system with the objective of using the same in their own business. The pen drive and external hard disc through which the accused persons would have used to unauthorizedly copy/download the data is still in the possession of accused persons and must be recovered.

2.5. During investigation, from the e-mails recovered, it is found that the newly incorporated company of the accused persons was dealing with the clients of the complainant company while still in its employment. The business of the complainant company is such that being a trading agency it works as mediator/agent between foreign buyers and Indian manufacturers. The complainant company as well as the company newly incorporated by the Respondents herein inspect for quality control the goods being manufactured by Indian vendors on behalf of the foreign buyers. Therefore, the contacts, the data and earned relationships become highly important.

2.6. The learned Trial Court while granting anticipatory bail to the respondents herein overlooked the fact that a strong prima facie case is made out during investigation and that to make further progress in the investigation, custodial interrogation of the respondents is necessary.

2.7. The learned Trial Court also failed to appreciate that offences under Sections 408, 420 and 120B IPC were added only in October, 2012 and the report of the CFSL was received in January, 2013.

2.8. It is submitted that though the Respondents herein have joined investigation, they have not fully cooperated. The Respondents herein have failed to deposit the pen drives/hard drives for verification or provide a satisfactory reply in regard ther