Karnataka High Court
Pradeep Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 September, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5824/2014
BETWEEN:
Pradeep Kumar,
S/o. Mr. Ashok Kumar,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at No.2624, Sector-16,
Faridabad,
Harayana State-121 002.
Also at Office Address,
M/S. Koyo Auto Controls
No.162/7A,
Opp. Bharat Gas Godown,
Pataudi Road,
Village Kadipur Gurgaon,
Harayana State-122 001. .. PETITIONER
(By Sri. M.B. Nargund, Sr. Adv.
For Ms. Ambika Das, Adv)
AND:
The State of Karnataka,
By Hebbagodi Police Station,
Anekal Taluk,
Rep. SPP,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore-560 001. .. RESPONDENT
(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
2
This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of the
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event
of his arrest in Cr. No.425/2014 of Hebbagodi P.S., Anekal,
for the offences punishable under Sections 424, 491, 120B,
418, 408, 468 of IPC.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following :
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the respondent police that in the event of his arrest, he be released on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 424, 491, 120B, 418, 408, 468 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.425/2014.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials on record.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, during the course of the arguments, submitted that accused 3 No.1 and petitioner-accused No.2 were the employees of the complainant company. During their tenure in the said company, the petitioner has done his work honestly. The petitioner left the said company by tendering his resignation letter dated 16.1.2014. The said resignation letter was accepted and the complainant company also issued no due certificate dated 15.2.2014. Subsequently, after lapse of four months, the complainant filed a private complaint before the Court making allegations against the petitioner along with other accused persons about the alleged offence. The learned Counsel draws the attention of this Court to Clause 14 of the agreement with regard to disclosing information of the company about technical know-how of projects and process, methods, plans, drawing of the company, etc. This clause is made applicable to accused No.1 according to the agreement. So far as the petitioner-accused No.2 is concerned, it is alleged in the complaint that as per clause No.16 of appointment letter, the petitioner has undertaken not to join the complainant competitors in the market in any capacity for a period of two years. However, there is no such clause in the appointment letter. He has also submitted that 4 since the petitioner has already tendered resignation and no due certificate has been issued by the company, the question of the petitioner committing the alleged offence does not arise at all and false allegations are made against him. The petitioner is residing at Gurgaon and not at Bangalore. Similar allegations are made against accused No.1 also and he has been granted bail by the order of JMFC Court, Anekal. Hence, even on the ground of parity, the petitioner accused-No.2 is entitled to be granted with bail. He submitted that the alleged offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, submitted to allow the petition.
5. As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, during the course of the arguments, submitted that looking to the prosecution materials, it prima facie goes to show commission of the alleged offence by the petitioner. The learned HCGP refers to the statement of Pradeep who is a System Administrator and made submission that according to his statement, the petitioner is alleged to have downloaded 5 data pertaining to the complainant company and made use of it against the company. This shows that the petitioner has committed the alleged offence. He submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegations made in the complaint, it is necessary for the investigating officer to interrogate the petitioner. The matter is still under investigation and at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.
6. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, private complaint registered in PCR No.174/2014 which was subsequently referred to the police for investigation and to submit a report.
7. In the complaint at para No.10, it is alleged that as per clause No.16 of the appointment letter, the petitioner has undertaken not to join the complainant competitors in the market in any capacity for a period of two years. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the terms and conditions of the appointment letter, but no such condition is available in the appointment letter. 6
8. I have perused the resignation letter tendered on 16.1.2014 and no due certificate issued on 15.2.2014. Looking to the said documents, they prima facie go to show that nothing is due form the petitioner towards complainant company. The materials also show that four months after the issue of said no due certificate and five months after submission of resignation letter, the complainant has filed a private complaint before the court making allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner has denied all the allegations made in the complaint stating that false allegations are made against him and he has been falsely implicated in the case.
9. Perusing the complaint averments, similar allegations are made against accused No.1, who has been already released on bail by the order of JMFC Court, Anekal. Therefore, on the ground of parity also, the petitioner is also entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Perusing the alleged offence, they are triable by the Court of Magistrate and they are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner has undertaken that he is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. 7
10. Therefore, looking to all these materials, the petition is allowed. The respondent police are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 424, 491, 120B, 418, 408, 468 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.425/2014, subject to the following conditions:
I. The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) and shall offer one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
II. The petitioner shall appear before the
investigating officer for the purpose of
interrogation, whenever called upon to do so. III. The petitioner shall not intimidate or tamper with prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
IV. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court within thirty days from the date of this order and shall execute personal bond as well as surety bond.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cs/-