PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner, during the course of the arguments, submitted that accused 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 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.