Bombay High Court
JAYANT GOVIND CHANDORKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- PRAFULLA S KHUBALKAR
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, confirming the earlier interim protection, subject to specified conditions.
Summary
Dr. Jayant Govind Chandorkar applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in Crime No. 118 of 2025, filed under Sections 3(5) and 316(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 43(b), 43(j), 66 and 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 for allegedly diverting the ‘TWAT Catalyst Technology’ of PRIYAANJAS OPC Pvt. Ltd to his own firm, SAV Analytic Online System. The FIR was based on a complaint by the company alleging that the accused, while employed as senior officers, clandestinely used the proprietary technology for personal gain. The applicant contended that he had retired, was terminated on 31 December 2024, and therefore could not have misused the technology, also relying on an earlier interim protection order dated 23 June 2025. The State and the complainant argued that documentary evidence showed the accused’s use of the technology and concealed directorship in the rival company. The Court noted the applicant’s termination, lack of evidence of current involvement, and the existing interim protection, and therefore confirmed bail with strict conditions. The bail order required a personal bond of Rs. 25,000, a surety, non‑interference with investigation, and a prohibition on using the disputed technology. Breach of any condition would lead to cancellation of bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to Dr. Chandorkar under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Information Technology Act despite allegations of technology theft.
- Whether the earlier interim protection order dated 23 June 2025 continues to apply.
- What conditions, if any, should be imposed on the grant of anticipatory bail in this context.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 316(4), 3(5)
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 43(b), 43(j), 66, 72
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cybercrime
- intellectual property theft
- technology diversion
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Information Technology Act
- bail conditions
- corporate espionage
Judgment
902(3)-ABA-1678-2025.ODT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1678 OF 2025
Dr. Jayant Govind Chandorkar …Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra And Anr. …Respondents
Adv. Kabul Singh Labana for the Applicants.
Mr. Prasanna P. Malshe, A.P. P., for the Respondent – State.
Adv. Abhijeet Desai a/w Adv. Karan Gajra a/w Adv Sanchita
Sontakke, for the Respondent No.2.
WPSI Renuka Pardeshi, Kandivali Police Station, Mumbai,
is present.
CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
DATE : 6TH AUGUST 2026
P.C:-
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned APP for
respondent – State and learned counsel for respondent no.2.
2. The applicant is apprehending arrest in Crime No. 118 of
2025, dated 14.02.2025, registered with Kandivali (West) Police
Station, Brihanmumbai, for the offence punishable under Sections
3(5) and 316(4) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, (for short,
“BNS”) and Sections 43(b), 43(j), 66 and 72 of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 (for short, “IT Act”).
Page 1 of 6
th
6 August 2026
902(3)-ABA-1678-2025.ODT
3. The FIR is registered on the basis of a report lodged by the
complainant who claims to be a Director of the company by name
PRIYAANJAS OPC Pvt. Ltd. which is involved in the business of
water treatment recycle and reuse projects. It is alleged that the
accused persons were working in the company as employees of
the company particularly, that the accused no.1, Dr. Jayant
Chandorkar was the Vice President whereas accused no.2, Mr.
Vyanktesh Jeevan Chandekar was entrusted with the work of
Commissioning and Supervision Engineer and accused no.3, Amit
Hanumant Jadhav was the Executive Engineer. It is alleged that
the accused persons have clandestinely diverted the technological
know-how of the company for the purpose of running their
independent company by name ‘SAV Analytic Online System’
which was being run at Nagpur. It is alleged that the technological
innovations of the company particularly the ‘TWAT Catalyst
Technology’ was being used by these applicants for the purpose of
doing their independent business and earning profits. On the basis
of these allegations, the FIR is registered against the three accused
persons.
Page 2 of 6
th
6 August 2026
902(3)-ABA-1678-2025.ODT
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that this applicant
was working as a Vice President of the company and the
allegations of secretly transferring the technology for the purpose
of doing the business of other company are without any basis. He
submits that there was no use of TWAT Catalyst Technology as
alleged. He also submits that considering the nature of allegations,
there is no need of custodial interrogation of this applicant as the
investigation is primarily based on the documentary evidence.
Apart from this, he submits that this applicant was protected by
order dated 23rd June 2025 and he has not misused the liberty and
therefore, prays for confirmation of interim protection.
5. In view of the allegations about use of technical know-how
of the complainant’s company, learned counsel for the applicant,
on instructions, states that since the applicant is already retired,
there is no question of using any such technology by him as
alleged. It is pointed out that the other two accused persons have
submitted an undertaking stating therein that they shall not use in
any manner the TWAT Catalyst Technology, together with any
confidential information and other intellectual property rights
belonging to the complainant’s company and in view of this, it is
Page 3 of 6
th
6 August 2026
902(3)-ABA-1678-2025.ODT
submitted that the interest of the complainant’s company is
protected. The applicant therefore prays for confirmation of the
interim protection.
6. As against this, the learned APP for respondent – State and
learned counsel for respondent no.2 – complainant’s company
submits that there are specific allegations about the role played by
each of the accused persons and there are documents to show that
they have used TWAT Catalyst technology for the purpose of doing
independent business through their own company by name ‘SAV
Analytic Online System’. They submit that these accused persons
had concealed the fact that they were the Directors of the said
company and with an intention to transfer the technology, they
had got employments in complainant’s company.
7. It has to be noted that the offence is registered on
14th February 2025 and investigation is going on. The applicant
was protected by order dated 23 rd June 2025 and there is nothing
to show that the applicant has misused the liberty in any manner.
Apart from this, it has to be noted that the complainant has
alleged that this applicant was terminated by complainant’s
Page 4 of 6
th
6 August 2026
902(3)-ABA-1678-2025.ODT
company on 31st December 2024. Thus, it is clear that he has no
connection with the company and there is no likelihood of his
directly influencing the investigation.
8. Considering the nature of allegations and the fact that the
applicant was protected by this Court by the order dated
23rd June 2025, the interim protection granted earlier needs to
be confirmed, subject to certain conditions.
9. Hence, I pass following order :-
ORDER
(i) The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed.
(ii) In the event of arrest of the applicant in Crime
No. 118 of 2025, registered with Kandivali
(West) Police Station, Brihanmumbai, for the
offence punishable under Sections 3(5) and
316(4) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
(for short, “BNS”) and Sections 43(b), 43(j),
66 and 72 of the Information Technology Act,
2000, he be released on bail on furnishing P. R.
Bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the
like amount.
Page 5 of 6
th
6 August 2026
902(3)-ABA-1678-2025.ODT
(iii) The applicant shall not interfere with the
investigation and shall extend cooperation
during investigation and trial.
(iv) It is directed that the applicant shall not,
directly or indirectly, use in any manner the
TWAT Catalyst Technology exclusively
belonging to the complainant’s company,
during pendency of the investigation and
trials.
(v) The applicant shall extend cooperation by
revealing all the information, if demanded by
the Investigating Officer with respect to the
use of TWAT Catalyst Technology, including
correspondence exchanged in that regard.
(vi) Breach of any of these conditions, shall be a
ground for cancellation of the bail.
10. Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of in above
terms.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
VDMokal/-
Page 6 of 6
th
6 August 2026
Checking your session…