GIRISH KUMAR N Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petitioner claims to be the Managing Director of Aiplex software Private Limited which is an online antipiracy company headquartered in Bengaluru. According to the petitioner, On 4.11.2016, he was introduced to one Mrs.Poonam Bhagat Shroff through one of their connection requesting the petitioner to delete Youtube URLs that contained derogatory and defamatory videos of Mrs.Poonam Bhagat Shroff. The petitioner through his company Aiplex, pursuant to the aforesaid request of Mrs.Poonam Bhagat Shroff, deleted the following two URLs from the website www.youtube.com. It is stated that during the said period, the said Mrs.Poonam Bhagat Shroff informed the petitioner about the ongoing divorce petition between her and the third respondent. According to the petitioner, and hence, the third respondent taking note of the fact that the petitioner did work for Mrs.Poonam Bhagat Shroff has filed a false complaint before the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.70/SW/2017 making various imaginary allegations which are no way connected to the petitioner. It is further stated that the Metropolitan Magistrate 32nd Court at Bandra, Mumbai vide order dated 16.3.2017 has directed the respondent No.1 i.e., Kherwadi Police Station, Mumbai to register a F.I.R. under sections 384, 506(II), 504 and 120B of Indian Penal Code and section 66 of IT Act, 2000 and the petitioner is therefore apprehending his arrest through the second respondent and hence, the petitioner has sought for transit anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by the first respondent Police in connection with F.I.R. in MECR No.1/2017 registered at Kherwadi Police Station, Bhandra East, Mumbai, for the aforesaid offences.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the F.I.R. and the allegations made in the complaint wherein it is alleged that at the instance of the wife of the third respondent namely Mrs.Poonam Bhagat Shroff with whom the third respondent is engaged in a divorce proceedings, the petitioner has hacked the Wikipedia profile of Ms.Natalia Kapchuk and internet account and posted illegal, defamatory and derogatory material about respondent No.3 and made random calls and threatened to kill him and his children and demanded extortion of Rs.5 Crores for not doing the same by making call on 9.3.2017.

(3.) Regarding the maintainability of the petition before this Court, learned counsel has referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Dr.L.R.NAIDU vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 1984 CRI.L.J. 757 and the decision of the Delhi High Court in Capt.SATISH KUMAR SHARMA vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION and Others, 1991 CRI.L.J. 950 wherein it is held that section 438 of Cr.P.C., is wide enough to confer jurisdiction not only to the High Court or the Court of Sessions within whose territorial jurisdiction the offence has been committed and is to be enquired into and tried but also the High Court or the Court of Sessions where a person has reason to believe that he may be arrested in connection with the commission of non-bailable offence. In the aforesaid decisions the High Court of Karnataka and the High Court of Delhi have considered the decisions rendered by various other High Courts on the subject and have held that the jurisdiction relating to cognizance of an offence and that of granting of bail are entirely different. Bails are against arrest and detention. Therefore, the appropriate court within whose jurisdiction the arrest takes place or is apprehended or is contemplated will also have jurisdiction to grant bail to the person concerned. The proposition laid down in the above decisions leave no manner of doubt about the jurisdiction of this Court to grant an order of anticipatory bail under section 438 of Cr.P.C., if the petitioner is otherwise entitled thereto.