2017 (5) TMI 1755 - HC - Indian Laws

Internet hacking - Wikipedia profile hacked - 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 - HELD THAT - The apprehension voiced by the petitioner is well founded. The petitioner has made a clean breast of the fact that at the instance of the wife of the third respondent, he has deleted the offending URLs from the website of www.youtube.com in the course of his official business. As the allegations made in the complaint relate to the said incident, the grant of bail would only facilitate the Investigating Agency to expedite the investigation - No doubt there are allegations of criminal intimidation and extortion, but solely on account of the said allegations, the police machinery cannot be allowed to intermeddle with the liberties of the petitioner on the guise of conducting investigation into the allegations made against the petitioner. On evaluating the entire material available on record, this Court is of the view that grant of anticipatory bail in the instant case would not any way prejudice the investigation, on the other hand, it would prevent harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the petitioner. In the event of the arrest of the petitioner by respondent Nos.1 and 2 or by whomsoever concerned in regard to MECR No.1/2017 registered at Kherwadi Police Station, Bhandra East for the offences under sections 384, 504, 506(II), 120-B of Indian Penal Code and section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on obtaining abond for ₹ 3,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Apprehension of arrest and seeking transit anticipatory bail.
2. Allegations of hacking, defamation, criminal intimidation, and extortion.
3. Maintainability of the petition before the High Court.
4. Grant of anticipatory bail based on legal principles and investigation considerations.

Issue 1: Apprehension of Arrest and Transit Anticipatory Bail
The petitioner, claiming to be the Managing Director of an online antipiracy company, sought transit anticipatory bail due to a false complaint filed against him by the third respondent. The complaint alleged involvement in hacking, defamation, criminal intimidation, and extortion. The Metropolitan Magistrate directed the police to register an FIR, causing the petitioner to fear arrest. The High Court, considering the circumstances, granted anticipatory bail to prevent unjustified detention and harassment, emphasizing the need to balance investigation requirements with individual liberties.

Issue 2: Allegations of Hacking, Defamation, and Extortion
The complaint accused the petitioner of hacking a Wikipedia profile, posting defamatory content, making threatening calls, and demanding extortion. The allegations were linked to the ongoing divorce proceedings involving the wife of the third respondent. Despite serious accusations of criminal intimidation and extortion, the High Court found that granting anticipatory bail would not impede the investigation but would prevent undue harassment of the petitioner. Legal principles and Supreme Court precedents were cited to support the decision to grant bail.

Issue 3: Maintainability of the Petition
The petitioner's counsel argued for the maintainability of the petition before the High Court, citing relevant case laws. Referring to decisions by the High Courts of Karnataka and Delhi, it was established that the High Court has jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail if the petitioner has reason to believe in potential arrest for a non-bailable offense. The distinction between the court's jurisdiction for cognizance of an offense and granting bail was emphasized, ensuring the petitioner's entitlement to seek anticipatory bail.

Issue 4: Grant of Anticipatory Bail
Upon reviewing the allegations against the petitioner, the High Court found merit in the petitioner's apprehension of arrest. Acknowledging the petitioner's cooperation in deleting URLs at the request of the third respondent's wife, the court granted anticipatory bail to prevent unnecessary interference with the petitioner's liberties during the investigation. Emphasizing the need to balance investigation requirements with individual rights, the court outlined conditions for bail, including cooperation with the investigation and refraining from threatening prosecution witnesses.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the High Court in granting transit anticipatory bail to the petitioner in light of serious allegations and legal considerations.