Cyber Crime--Bail refused--Petitioner indulged into hacking--The non recovery of any such material at this stage does not dilute the commission of offence
Cyber Crime--Hacking--Hackers--Meaning explained.

1. This petition has been moved u/s. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Abhinav Gupta-petitioner seeking his anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 86, dated 20.03.2008, u/s. 66 of the Information Technology Act and Ss. 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Police Station Sector-55, Faridabad.

2. The minimal facts of the case are these : The petitioner after completing his B.E. (Mechanical) in the year 1996 worked with Escorts-ECEL as Manager Design during the period from 2002-2003. He worked with Terex Vectra Equipment Private Limited as Manager, Designing for back Hoe Loader from the year 2003-2006 (August). Then he worked with JCB India Pvt. Ltd. (for short JCBI) as Manager Product Engineering (Design) from August, 2006 to January, 2008. He joined Escorts-ECEL as Divisional Manager (Designs) in January, 2008. The JCBI accepted his resignation vide letter dated 4.01.2008 and agreed to relieve him from his duties on 14.01.2008. He was relieved on the aforesaid date after he was given a final clearance by all the Departments of JCBI including I.T. Department. As per allegations in the FIR No. 86 ibid against him by JCBI containing the allegations that he was exposed to various confidential information, trade secrets of the company and has also confidential drawings, designs plans etc. of the complainant company. During the course of his exit interviewed with the Product Engineering Head, he categorically maintained that he would not be joining any company, which was in direct competition with JCBI and thus assured the Product Engineering Head that all intellectual property information and secrecy so attained by him during this tenure with JCBI would be confidential at all times. In the 2nd week of March, 2008, the complainant came to know that after leaving the employment, the petitioner has joined Escorts Construction Equipments Ltd. which is a direct competitor of the complainant company. On 11.03.2008, the Management of the complainant-company was notified by the office security staff that some documents pertaining printouts of the E-mail message pertaing to private E-mail account of Abhinav Gupta (referring to the accused) being abhinavdeepti @ indiatimes.com were found in the premises of the complainant company, which revealed that these were the intellectual property of the complainant. Confidential information containing the confidential files data and designs of the complainant company from his official E-mail I.D. abhinavdeepti @ indiatimes.com. From the aforesaid printouts, it has become clear that the accused while in the employment of the complainant company was using the complainants computers, computer systems and computer networks and has got the confidential trade secrets being the designs and drawings of engineering department and had apparently downloaded/transferred the same on the local P.C. by using which he uploaded the said confidential designs and date on personal E-mail I.D. being abhinavdeepti @ indiatimes.com. A perusal of the accused Abhinav Guptas mail archive within the confidential company suggest that he used to send mails of various subject-matters to E-mail ID being abhinavdeepti @ indiatimes.com. and the abovementioned printouts also corroborate that he was using his personal E-mail I.D. abhinavdeepti @ indiatimes.com. while in the employment of the complainant company and had actually sent/transmitted various confidential drawings including drawings for a Backhoe Bucket Link 40 tanks Fender Post leg Hydraulic rear post Boom-dipper WA drg. Etc. to recipients. By indulging in the aforesaid illegal and wrongful acts, he has committed the offence of hacking u/s. 66 of the Act etc.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and caution.

4. Mr. R. S. Cheema, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner eloquently urged that since the petitioner was not given any laptop computer to carry out his work at home, it was a