S.W. Palanitkar And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 18 October, 2001
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.