Full Judgment
Sunil Kumar Garg, V.J.
1. This is an application for bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused petitioner in FIR No. 150/2000 registered at Police Station Sodala, Jaipur for the offence under Sections 420 and 408 IPC.
2. Facts giving rise to this bail application in short are as follows:
Arun Saxena, who is Authorised Representative and Area Sales Manager, Samsung India Electronics Limited, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant Company) lodged a report in the Police Station, Sodala, Jaipur City on 26.5.2000 with the allegations that the accused petitioner was the Branch Manager in the Complainant Company at Jaipur and he was transferred on 14th March, 2000 from Jaipur to Delhi and on 10.4.2000 he submitted his resignation, which was accepted by the Complainant Company on 14.4.2000. When the record of the computers at places Delhi and Jaipur was checked, it was found by the Complainant Company on 19.4.2000 that while the accused petitioner was wording in the complainant Company as Branch Manager, he has opened SAP system for more than 35 times for collecting the most secret information, which can be collected or seen by a few selected authorised persons of the top management. The information alleged to have been collected by the accused petitioner is mentioned in the report lodged by Arun Saxena. It is alleged in the FIR that the information, which has been collected by the accused petitioner, was not general and it was never disclosed to any body and thus by doing so, he has stolen unauthorisedly information and he has further supplied it to another Company known as 'LG Electronics India Ltd.' Thus, the accused petitioner has deceived the complainant Company and has made breach of promise etc. and therefore, he should be prosecuted.
3. On this FIR, a case under Sections 420 and 408 IPC.
438
4. The copy of the bail application has been given to the learned Public Prosecutor and the case diary has been procured and the arguments are heard.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has mainly argued that no case either of Section 420 and 408 IPC.
438
6. On the other hand, this bail application has been vehemently opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the complainant.
7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
8. From the case diary, it appears that the accused petitioner was Branch Manager in the complainant Company and, thereafter, he was transferred to Delhi on 14th March, 2000 and he worked upto 10.4.2000, when he submitted his resignation which was accepted by the complainant Company on 14.4.2000. In the case diary, there is an appointment letter of the accused petitioner, which shows that during the terms of the employment, the accused petitioner while working as Branch Manager in the complainant Company, will not divulge or make known any information in any way whatsoever relating to the company or its business/or of its customer and/or any other information, secret processes or data and material, which may come to his knowledge during the course of his employment. In the case diary, report of log info is also attached, which shows that SAP System was being operated through the code numbers, which were allotted to persons concerned. The papers attached to the case diary also go to show that SAP system of the complainant company was opened for more than 35 times for collecting the most secret information, which was in charge of the accused petitioner.
9. Without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the papers available in the case diary, this is not a fit case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the accused petitioner. At this stage, it cannot be said that no case of cheating or breach of trust is made out.
Hence, this bail application filed by the accused petitioner Sanjay Bhatla under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.