IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 104 RAHUL BHUTANI STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. Present : Mr Mr. Apoorv Garg, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana MANISHA BATRA CRM-21456-2025 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Main case 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No. registered under Sections Faridabad Kotwali, 2. The aforementioned FIR has been registered on the basis of a written complaint lodged by the complainant representative of M/s Abacus Desk IT Solution Pvt. Company) alleging therein that the Company was involved in the busine providing software and it accused Vinay Kumar and Atul Arora had joined the the Company in the year 2015 and 2018 respectively. The valuable data of the Company had been provided to them for the purpose of enhancement of the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M Date of decision: RAHUL BHUTANI Versus STATE OF HARYANA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. M.D. Khan, Advocate for the Mr. Apoorv Garg, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (oral) 2025 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short-‘BNSS’) of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No. registered under Sections 120-B, 408 and 420 of IPC, Faridabad Kotwali, District Faridabad. The aforementioned FIR has been registered on the basis of a written complaint lodged by the complainant representative of M/s Abacus Desk IT Solution Pvt. ) alleging therein that the Company was involved in the busine providing software and its incidental services since last several years. The accused Vinay Kumar and Atul Arora had joined the ny in the year 2015 and 2018 respectively. The valuable data of the Company had been provided to them for the purpose of enhancement of the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M No.28190 of 2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.05.2025 …. Petitioner …. Respondent MANISHA BATRA , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Apoorv Garg, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana. Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.302 dated 04.06.2024 nd 420 of IPC, at Police Station The aforementioned FIR has been registered on the basis of a written complaint lodged by the complainant-Kunal Tyagi authorized representative of M/s Abacus Desk IT Solution Pvt. Ltd. (for short-the ) alleging therein that the Company was involved in the business of s incidental services since last several years. The accused Vinay Kumar and Atul Arora had joined the Marketing Department of ny in the year 2015 and 2018 respectively. The valuable data of the Company had been provided to them for the purpose of enhancement of the Bharatiya by the petitioner for grant 04.06.2024 at Police Station The aforementioned FIR has been registered on the basis of a Kunal Tyagi authorized the ss of s incidental services since last several years. The Marketing Department of ny in the year 2015 and 2018 respectively. The valuable data of the Company had been provided to them for the purpose of enhancement of the Jyoti 2025.05.23 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM business and for managing old clients, including their contact lists, the manner of the services provided to them an the information of the leads. Both of them were having access to the software source code. They misused companies and thereafter, they even formed a new company in Loyalty Partner IT Solution Pvt. Ltd. By committing fraud with the Company of the complainant and started selling propriety had committed wrongful loss to the complainant. It was also alleged that the abovenamed Atul Arora and Vinay Kumar in connivance wi Utkarsh, Yogesh S Kushwaha who were previously developers on the roles of the Company were also sending software codes in illegal manner to th huge losses. After registration of the FIR initiated and are underway. During the course of the investigation, the accused Vinay Kumar and Atul Arora were arrested. They suffered disclosure statement on the basis of which, the petitioner has been nominated as an accused. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of pre-arrest bail which had been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fari 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co accused which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. He w named in the FIR. In fact, there is dispute between the complainant and the co accused Vinay Kumar and Atul Arora which is of civil nature but by giving it a criminal colour, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in an illegal manner. CRM-M No.28190 of 2025 (O&M) business and for managing old clients, including their contact lists, the manner of the services provided to them and the charges for such services along with the information of the leads. Both of them were having access to the software source code. They misused such code and started sharing data with other companies and thereafter, they even formed a new company in Loyalty Partner IT Solution Pvt. Ltd. By committing fraud with the Company of the complainant and started selling propriety had committed wrongful loss to the complainant. It was also alleged that the Atul Arora and Vinay Kumar in connivance wi Utkarsh, Yogesh Shrivastava, Abhishek Mandal, Shubham Bhatia and Mit Kushwaha who were previously developers on the roles of the Company were also sending software codes in illegal manner to th huge losses. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. During the course of the investigation, the accused Vinay Kumar and Atul Arora were arrested. They suffered disclosure statement on the basis of which, the petitioner has been nominated as an accused. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for arrest bail which had been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide order dated 08.10.2024. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co accused which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. He w named in the FIR. In fact, there is dispute between the complainant and the co accused Vinay Kumar and Atul Arora which is of civil nature but by giving it a criminal colour, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in an illegal manner. -2- business and for managing old clients, including their contact lists, the manner d the charges for such services along with the information of the leads. Both of them were having access to the software such code and started sharing data with other companies and thereafter, they even formed a new company in the name of Loyalty Partner IT Solution Pvt. Ltd. By committing fraud with the Company of the complainant and started selling propriety software and by doing so, they had committed wrongful loss to the complainant. It was also alleged that the Atul Arora and Vinay Kumar in connivance with co-accused Mandal, Shubham Bhatia and Mitesh Kushwaha who were previously developers on the roles of the Company were also sending software codes in illegal manner to these accused thereby, causing , investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. During the course of the investigation, the accused Vinay Kumar and Atul Arora were arrested. They suffered disclosure statement on the basis of which, the petitioner has been nominated as an accused. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for arrest bail which had been dismissed by the Court of learned dabad vide order dated 08.10.2024. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co- accused which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. He was not named in the FIR. In fact, there is dispute between the complainant and the co- accused Vinay Kumar and Atul Arora which is of civil nature but by giving it a criminal colour, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in an illegal manner. business and for managing old clients, including their contact lists, the manner d the charges for such services along with the information of the leads. Both of them were having access to the software such code and started sharing data with other the name of Loyalty Partner IT Solution Pvt. Ltd. By committing fraud with the Company software and by doing so, they had committed wrongful loss to the complainant. It was also alleged that the accused esh Kushwaha who were previously developers on the roles of the Company were ese accused thereby, causing , investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. During the course of the investigation, the accused Vinay Kumar and Atul Arora were arrested. They suffered disclosure statement on the basis of which, the petitioner has been nominated as an accused. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for arrest bail which had been dismissed by the Court of learned It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been - as not - accused Vinay Kumar and Atul Arora which is of civil nature but by giving it a criminal colour, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in an illegal manner. Jyoti 2025.05.23 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM Even the subject offences have not been attracted against him at all. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. Neither any recovery is to be effected from him nor he is shown to be alleged to beneficiary of any transaction the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Learned State counsel who has appeared on advance notice of the petition is ready to argue the matter. It is submitted by him that there are serious allegations against the petitioner with whose connivance, co Vinay Kumar and Atul Arora had committed offences of cheating and fraud and had caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.40,95,840/ The petitioner was an employee applications and source code of the Company to the co conducting thorough investigation in the matter, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. No extra ordinary or exceptional circumstances for pre-arrest bail has been made out. Accordingly, it is argued that he does not deserve to be given benefit of pre 6. Rival submissions have been heard. 7. The petitioner is alleged to have caused wrongful loss to the Company in connivance with the co source code of the Company and now selling the same to the clients. allegations are specific in nature and for the matter, the custodial interrogation o well settled proposition of law that arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other CRM-M No.28190 of 2025 (O&M) subject offences have not been attracted against him at all. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. Neither any recovery is to be effected from him nor he is shown to be alleged to beneficiary of any transaction. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. Notice of motion. Learned State counsel who has appeared on advance notice of the is ready to argue the matter. It is submitted by him that there are ious allegations against the petitioner with whose connivance, co Vinay Kumar and Atul Arora had committed offences of cheating and fraud and had caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.40,95,840/ The petitioner was an employee of the company and had shared software applications and source code of the Company to the co conducting thorough investigation in the matter, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. No extra ordinary or exceptional circumstances for arrest bail has been made out. Accordingly, it is argued that he does not deserve to be given benefit of pre-arrest bail. Rival submissions have been heard. The petitioner is alleged to have caused wrongful loss to the connivance with the co-accused and had stolen the software and source code of the Company and now selling the same to the clients. allegations are specific in nature and for conducting thorough investigation in the matter, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. Moreso, it is well settled proposition of law that arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other -3- subject offences have not been attracted against him at all. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. Neither any recovery is to be effected from him nor he is shown to be alleged . With these broad submissions, it is urged that Learned State counsel who has appeared on advance notice of the is ready to argue the matter. It is submitted by him that there are ious allegations against the petitioner with whose connivance, co-accused Vinay Kumar and Atul Arora had committed offences of cheating and fraud and had caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.40,95,840/- to the complainant. of the company and had shared software applications and source code of the Company to the co-accused. For conducting thorough investigation in the matter, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. No extra ordinary or exceptional circumstances for grant of arrest bail has been made out. Accordingly, it is argued that he does not Rival submissions have been heard. The petitioner is alleged to have caused wrongful loss to the accused and had stolen the software and source code of the Company and now selling the same to the clients. The conducting thorough investigation in f the petitioner is must. Moreso, it is well settled proposition of law that arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other subject offences have not been attracted against him at all. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. Neither any recovery is to be effected from him nor he is shown to be alleged . With these broad submissions, it is urged that Learned State counsel who has appeared on advance notice of the is ready to argue the matter. It is submitted by him that there are accused Vinay Kumar and Atul Arora had committed offences of cheating and fraud to the complainant. of the company and had shared software For conducting thorough investigation in the matter, custodial interrogation of the grant of arrest bail has been made out. Accordingly, it is argued that he does not The petitioner is alleged to have caused wrongful loss to the accused and had stolen the software and The conducting thorough investigation in f the petitioner is must. Moreso, it is well settled proposition of law that arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other Jyoti 2025.05.23 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM purposes. The powers of anticipatory bail are extra ordinary an to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. The judicial discretion conferred upon the Court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation, possibility of applicant fleeing from justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail as such grant to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence. anticipatory bail should not o criminal cases by the trial Court. T person is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule and has to be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extra ordinary remedy. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not dese 8. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case 21.05.2025 Jyoti-IV CRM-M No.28190 of 2025 (O&M) purposes. The powers of anticipatory bail are extra ordinary an to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. The judicial discretion conferred upon the Court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation, possibility of applicant fleeing from justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail as such grant to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence. The Court has also to see that an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as inroad in the normal legal procedure of criminal cases by the trial Court. The custodial interrogation of a suspected person is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule and has to be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist esort to that extra ordinary remedy. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- purposes. The powers of anticipatory bail are extra ordinary and the same are to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. The judicial discretion conferred upon the Court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation, possibility of applicant fleeing from justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail as such grant to some extent interferes in the sphere of The Court has also to see that an order of perate as inroad in the normal legal procedure of he custodial interrogation of a suspected person is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 482 of BNSS. The Court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule and has to be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist esort to that extra ordinary remedy. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the rve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case. (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No. Yes/No d the same are to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. The judicial discretion conferred upon the Court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation, possibility of applicant fleeing from justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail as such grant to some extent interferes in the sphere of The Court has also to see that an order of perate as inroad in the normal legal procedure of he custodial interrogation of a suspected person is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who The Court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule and has to be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist esort to that extra ordinary remedy. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall Jyoti 2025.05.23 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document