Chattisgarh High Court
Mohan Kumar Sahukan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 May, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:22312
NAFR
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally
signed by
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
MCRCA No. 727 of 2026
Govind Yashwantrao Sewilkar S/o Sh. Yashwantrao Sewilkar Aged
About 57 Years (Wrongly Typed As Yashwant Rao Sewlikar In The
Impugned Order) R/o Flat No 210 Block-A, Sai Krupa Apartment
Kompally Rangareddy, Telangana - 500014, Do Hereby State On Oath
As Under
---Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through-Police Station Mahasamund District-
Mahasamund (C.G.)
--- Non-applicant
MCRCA No. 728 of 2026
Mohan Kumar Sahukan S/o Shri Hemanth Rao Aged About 44 Years
R/o At 1-22, Anupam Nagar Near Ganesh Temple Raipur 492001 C.G.
Do Hereby State On Oath As Under
---Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mahasamund, District
Mahasamund C.G.
--- Non-applicant
For Applicants : Mr.Amrito Das, Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr.Amit Agrawal and Ms.Vandana Bansal,
:
Advocates
For Non-Applicant : Mr.S.S.Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate
2
For Objectors : Mrs.Ginni Jetley, Mr.Thakur Anand Mohan
Singh, Mr.Abhyuday Singh, Ms.Devika Thakur
and Ms.Anushka tulsyan, Advocates
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
12.05.2026
1.Since the aforesaid two bail applications have been filed arising out of the same crime number, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. These first anticipatory bail applications under Section 482 of the BNSS have been filed by the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.0204/2026 registered at Police Station-Mahasamund, District-Mahasamund (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicants, while employed with Manorama Industries Limited, were entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining and safeguarding complete drawings, processor data, production systems, and other important confidential information of the company, including its special technology, while ensuring complete secrecy and confidentiality. However, the applicants dishonestly and fraudulently shared the company's confidential documents with other companies through their personal Gmail IDs, thereby 3 causing financial loss to the company. Applicant Govind Yashwantrao Sewlikar was appointed as Assistant General Manager (Technical and Application) at Manorama Industries Limited and worked from 12.06.2023 to 30.10.2025 and applicant Mohan Sahukari was appointed as General Manager and worked from 01.10.2020 to 30.09.2025. Applicant Govind Yashwantrao Sewlikar, through his personal Gmail ID, namely [email protected], sent emails containing confidential company information to [email protected] and also to applicant Mohan Sahukari. Confidential information of the company was further circulated through the official company email IDs assigned to them, namely [email protected] and [email protected], to their personal email IDs. The applicants, while in the employment of the company, systematically and fraudulently transmitted important confidential information of the company to other companies on 28.09.2024 and 19.07.2025. Thereafter, both resigned from the company and joined a competing company. When the company attempted to enquire with the applicants over telephone calls, they were unwilling to disclose any information.
4. Upon an internal investigation conducted by the company, it was revealed that the applicants were responsible for defrauding the company and misappropriating its confidential information. Accordingly, a complaint dated 15.04.2026 was lodged against 4 the applicants, pursuant to which Crime No. 0204/2026 was registered at Mahasamund Police Station.
5. It is submitted by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicants that the entire dispute sought to be projected by the complainant is purely civil and contractual in nature arising out of an alleged breach of terms of employment, which has been deliberately given a colour of criminality only with an oblique motive to harass and pressurize the applicants. It is contended that applicant-Govind Yashwantrao Sewlikar was employed with the complainant company as AGM (Technical and Application) and had tendered his resignation in accordance with the terms of employment. Upon expiry of the notice period, the applicant was duly relieved from service on 30.10.2025 and was also issued a "No Dues Certificate" by the complainant company on the very same date, thereby clearly acknowledging that no liability or dispute subsisted against the applicant at the time of cessation of employment. It is submitted that the FIR has been lodged after more than five months from the date of relieving, which itself demonstrates that the allegations are an afterthought and have been engineered only after the applicant joined another organization.
6. It is further submitted that the allegations in the FIR do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence warranting custodial interrogation of the applicants. The complainant alleges 5 that applicant-Govind Yashwantrao Sewlikar had allegedly sent certain e-mails to a competitor company while in service. However, it is argued that no confidential formulation, proprietary data or trade secret of the complainant was ever shared by the applicant. The material allegedly forwarded consisted merely of brochures and general product-related information readily available in the public domain and was shared only to demonstrate his professional experience and credentials while applying for alternate employment at Hyderabad, where the applicant's family resides. It is specifically contended that applicant- Govind Yashwantrao Sewlikar was primarily looking after administrative functions and was never entrusted with any confidential formulations or secret compositions as falsely alleged in the FIR.
7. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that the complainant is seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant contained in the employment agreement by invoking criminal machinery. It is argued that the clause restraining the applicant from joining a competitor company for a period of three years after cessation of employment is ex facie unenforceable being opposed to settled principles governing restraint of trade. In any event, even assuming without admitting that there was any violation of the terms of employment, the agreement itself contains a dispute resolution mechanism as well as specific clauses prescribing penalties and consequences for any alleged breach. Therefore, 6 the complainant, if aggrieved, ought to have availed remedies in accordance with the contractual framework rather than initiating criminal proceedings with the sole intent to intimidate and coerce the applicants into severing ties with the present employer and rejoining the complainant company. It is also argued that the complainant has illegally accessed the personal e-mail account of applicant-Govind Yashwantrao Sewlikar from the office computer system after his resignation and has thereby infringed his right to privacy. The alleged retrieval of personal data and correspondence from the applicant's e-mail account without consent is itself unlawful and the complainant cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own illegal acts to set criminal law into motion. The entire prosecution, therefore, is founded upon material illegally procured by the complainant.
8. It is further submitted that all allegations levelled in the FIR are documentary in nature and the entire case of the prosecution rests upon alleged e-mails and electronic records already in possession of the complainant. No recovery is required to be effected from the applicants and no purpose would be served by subjecting them to custodial interrogation. The applicants have throughout cooperated with the investigation and undertake to continue extending full cooperation as and when required by the Investigating Agency. So far as applicant-Mohan Kumar is concerned, learned Senior Advocate submits that he was working merely as Manager (R&D) and his last date of service was 7 08.10.2025. Significantly, there is not even a whisper of allegation in the FIR that he transmitted any e-mail or shared any information with any third party or competitor entity. No overt act whatsoever has been attributed to him and his implication in the present case is wholly vague, omnibus and without any supporting material. It is submitted that continuation of criminal proceedings against him is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants, as the dispute is predominantly civil in character, custodial interrogation is wholly unnecessary, and the applicants are entitled to the protection of liberty guaranteed under law.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the objector oppose the submissions made by learned Senior Advocate for the applicants and submit that the present case is not a simple employer- employee dispute relating to resignation, salary, or service conditions, but a serious economic offence involving dishonest misappropriation of confidential technical know-how, proprietary formulations, trade secrets, customer databases, and commercially sensitive information belonging to Manorama Industries Limited. It is submitted that the Applicant, namely Govind Yashwantrao Sewlikar, along with co-accused Mohan Kumar Sahukan, occupied highly sensitive positions in the Research and Development Department of the complainant company and were entrusted with confidential technical and 8 commercial information solely in fiduciary capacity. It is further submitted that the complainant company is a reputed listed company engaged in the manufacture and export of specialty fats, Cocoa Butter Equivalent (CBE)/stearin oil products derived from sal and shea seeds and has developed specialised proprietary formulations after years of research, experimentation, technical refinement, and investment running into crores of rupees. The said formulations, manufacturing processes, application methodologies, ingredient compositions, and customer-specific data constitute valuable trade secrets and intellectual property of the complainant company. Learned counsel submits that both the Applicant and the co-accused had executed detailed Non-Disclosure Agreements in favour of the complainant company and were under a strict contractual and fiduciary obligation to maintain confidentiality of all proprietary information entrusted to them during the course of employment. Despite such binding obligations, the accused persons dishonestly transmitted confidential information through their personal email accounts and shared the same with persons associated with a competing entity, namely 3F Industries Limited.
10. It is submitted that after the resignation of the accused persons in October 2025, the complainant company came to know that 3F Industries Limited had entered into the business of manufacturing Cocoa Butter Equivalent products, despite previously having no presence in that sector. This development raised serious 9 suspicion, particularly because the complainant company was the only entity in India manufacturing specialised CBE/stearin oil products from sal and shea seeds. Learned counsel further submits that during internal scrutiny of the company laptop used by the Applicant, it was discovered that the Applicant had failed to log out from his personal Gmail account. Upon examination of the email trail, the complainant company discovered incriminating electronic material revealing systematic leakage and transmission of confidential formulations, process details, technical presentations, business plans, customer databases, and commercially sensitive information to external entities connected with 3F Industries Limited. It is contended that the email correspondence clearly demonstrates a continuing and premeditated conspiracy between the Applicant, the co-accused, and the competing entity for unlawful commercial exploitation of the complainant company's trade secrets and proprietary know- how. The Applicant had allegedly preserved and circulated confidential material through personal email IDs and had even attempted to solicit customers of the complainant company for the benefit of the competing entity.
11. Learned counsel submit that the present matter discloses serious offences involving criminal breach of trust, dishonest misappropriation of proprietary information, commercial espionage, and unlawful disclosure of trade secrets causing wrongful loss to the complainant company and corresponding 10 wrongful gain to the competing entity. It is submitted that due to the unlawful acts of the accused persons, the complainant company has suffered financial and commercial losses estimated at approximately Rs.150 Crores. It is further argued that custodial interrogation of the Applicant is necessary for effective investigation, recovery of electronic devices and digital evidence, identification of recipients and beneficiaries of the leaked confidential information, tracing deleted or concealed electronic records, and unearthing the larger conspiracy involving other persons and entities connected with 3F Industries Limited. Learned counsel submits that grant of anticipatory bail at this stage is likely to seriously prejudice the investigation, as there exists every possibility of destruction, manipulation, concealment, or tampering of crucial electronic evidence and digital footprints. It is also submitted that the Applicant has not cooperated with the investigation despite issuance of notice by the police authorities and has deliberately avoided personal appearance.
12. Learned counsel for the objector further submit that applicant- Govind Yashwantrao Sewlikar was not only bound by strict confidentiality and Non-Disclosure obligations, but had also expressly agreed under the terms of his employment that he would neither directly nor indirectly join, establish, assist, or engage in any identical, similar, or competing business relating to Cocoa Butter Equivalent (CBE), cocoa butter replacers/substitutes, or products derived from Shea, Sal, Mango, 11 Mowrah, Kokum, Dhupa and allied raw materials for a period of three years after cessation of employment with Manorama Industries Limited. It is submitted that despite the said binding covenant, the Applicant, in connivance with the co-accused, deliberately joined and assisted the competing entity, namely 3F Industries Limited, immediately after resignation and unlawfully utilized the confidential technical know-how, proprietary formulations, customer data, and trade secrets of the complainant company for the commercial benefit of the said competing entity. According to the objector, such conduct clearly establishes dishonest intention, breach of fiduciary trust, and conscious violation of contractual as well as legal obligations, thereby disentitling the Applicant from the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, considering the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the economic offence, the magnitude of financial loss, and the requirement of custodial interrogation, the present applications for anticipatory bail deserve to be rejected. They relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in S.W.Palanitkar and others v. State of Bihar and another, (2002) 1 SCC 241, Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat and another, (2016) 1 SCC 152, Srikant Upadhyay and others v. Sate of Bihar and another, (2024) 12 SCC 382, Arshad Neyaz Khan v. State of Jharkhand and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2058 and the High Court of Karnataka in Prabhat Sharma v. State of Karnataka By Cen Police Station, 12 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 10944, the High Court of Delhi in Pappu Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 5214, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Sujay Sen Gupta v. State of Haryana, 2012 SCC OnLine P&H 4857 & Abhinav Gupta v. State of Haryana, 2008 CRLJ 4536 and the High Court of Bombay in Jagmohan Jitendra Jaiswal v. The State of Maharashtra, 2023: BHC-AS:11690.
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the allegations levelled in the FIR primarily arise out of an employer- employee relationship and pertain to the alleged breach of contractual and confidentiality obligations after cessation of employment. The record reveals that applicant-Govind Yashwantrao Sewlikar had tendered his resignation and was formally relieved from service on 30.10.2025 after completion of the requisite notice period. Significantly, the complainant company itself issued a "No Dues Certificate" on the same date, thereby prima facie indicating that no subsisting grievance or liability was attributed to the applicant at the time of separation from service. The FIR admittedly came to be lodged after a considerable lapse of more than five months thereafter, which lends substance to the contention of the applicants that the 13 dispute subsequently assumed a criminal colour only after the applicant joined another organization.
15. At this stage, this Court is not required to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidentiary value of the allegations. However, from the material presently available, it appears that the prosecution case substantially rests upon documentary and electronic evidence in the nature of e-mails, electronic correspondence, presentations, and digital records, which are already stated to be in possession of the complainant company. No specific recovery requiring custodial interrogation of the applicants has been pointed out by the prosecution. The allegations against applicant-Govind Yashwantrao Sewlikar relate to alleged transmission of information through electronic means, whereas so far as applicant-Mohan Kumar Sahukan is concerned, no specific overt act has been attributed to him except vague allegations of association and conspiracy.
16. The contention raised on behalf of the complainant regarding breach of restrictive covenants and non-disclosure obligations undoubtedly gives rise to issues which may entail civil consequences and adjudication under contractual law. Whether the information allegedly shared constituted confidential proprietary data or material available in the public domain, and whether there has been any enforceable breach of contractual obligations, are matters requiring detailed investigation and trial. 14 At this stage, the material placed before this Court does not prima facie demonstrate the necessity of custodial interrogation, particularly when the evidence relied upon is predominantly documentary in nature.
17. The applicants have expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation and there is no material placed before this Court indicating that they are likely to abscond or evade the process of law. The apprehension of tampering with evidence can sufficiently be safeguarded by imposing stringent conditions. It is well settled that anticipatory bail is intended to secure individual liberty and that arrest should not be resorted to merely as a punitive measure, especially where the investigation can proceed on the basis of documentary material already available with the investigating agency.
18. Considering the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence collected so far, the absence of any requirement of custodial recovery, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the applicants have made out a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
19. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA's are allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicants - Govind Yashwantrao Sewlikar and Mohan Kumar Sahukan, involved in connection with Crime No.0204/2026 on executing a personal bond with one 15 surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer each, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-
(a) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court.
(b) They shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.
(c) They shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial.
(d) The applicants and the surety shall submit a copy of their adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court.
(e) They shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Bablu/Kunal