1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (ABA) No. 254 of 2011 (Chandrahas Natthuji Chaudhari Vs. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. S.V. Manohar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. V.A. Thakre, A.P.P. for the State/respondent. CORAM : M. N. GILANI, J. DATE : 11 th AUGUST, 2011. Heard. The applicant, who has been arrayed as an accused in Crime No. 122/2011 under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered with Police Station Ambazari, Nagpur, is seeking pre-arrest bail. The company by name ADCC Research & Computing Centre Pvt. Ltd. (herein ADCC) is a outsourcing service company, based in Nagpur. From 05/01/2000 till February, 2011, the applicant was associated with this company. This company has dealings with New York based software and product marketing firm called as 'INDROS' Group, headed by one Mr. Tej Kohli. ADCC used to prepare/write the source code for the software platform of the INDROS. On 25/05/2011, the complainant-Krushnamurari Prasad, Senior Manager, ADCC, lodged F.I.R. with Police Station Ambazari. The gist of F.I.R. 2 is that the applicant was associated with ADCC, since January, 2000 and one Mr. Salpekar was holding the post of Software Developers. They had dealings with INDROS. By the end of January, 2011, an amount of Rs.33,82,100/- became outstanding against INDROS. The applicant and Mr. Salpekar had close contacts with Mr. Tej Kohli, the head of INDROS Group. On 06/02/2011, the applicant resigned ADCC. The complainant then checked the cabin of the applicant and found that the documents like Memorandum of Understanding, contract papers with INDROS etc. were missing. The applicant joined the INDROS Group and instigated other employees of ADCC to join INDROS. It is further alleged that the documents as well as Source Code, both also carried away by the applicant. The complainant believed that deliberately the applicant and Mr. Salpekar left the job of ADCC. Although, the applicant was asked to handover the documents, contract papers and Source Code, there had been no response. The learned A.P.P. filed reply. The averments in the F.I.R. are reiterated by mentioning that the documents like Memorandum of Understanding, Agreements and Source Code of ADCC are with the applicant. With a view to cause wrongful loss to ADCC, the applicant carried away with him all these materials and this has caused loss of about 3 Rs.34,00,000/- to ADCC. Perusal of F.I.R., dated 25/05/2011, shows that the complainant has been aggrieved because of the applicant and Mr. Salpekar leaving the job of ADCC. It is pertinent to note that the applicant left his job on 06/02/2011 and the F.I.R. came to be lodged on 25/05/2011. By leaving job, the applicant informed to ADCC about his intention to leave them. The applicant in his resignation letter mentioned in detailed as to with which employee what information and what documents are available or can be found. He further showed his willingness to furnish or share whatever the information and details he possesses and which are required by ADCC. From the tenor of F.I.R., it further appears that non-receipt of the dues from INDROS has aggravated the situation for the complainant. Although, the non-payment of the dues by INDROS, is not an issue germane to the decision of the present application, with all fairness, the learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that INDROS is ready to make payment of this amount provided that the relevant data is transferred to them and thereafter it is erased/deleted from the systems in possession of ADCC. Annexure-1 is the communication between Tej Kohli and Arun Lakhani of ADCC. In this view of the matter and even remotely the responsibility of amount of Rs.33,82,000/- 4 which is payable by INDROS to ADCC cannot be saddled upon the present applicant. Non-payment of this amount by INDROS has nothing to do with the applicant and Mr. Salpekar leaving ADCC. Of course, it is denied by the applicant that he had joined INDROS. When the applicant moved similar application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he was granted interim protection and in pursuant to that, he appeared before the Investigating Officer and he was interrogated. Therefore, this appears to be the fit case of exercising powers under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application is allowed. In the event of arrest of the applicant in Crime No. 122/2011, registered with Police Station Ambazari, under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, he be released on his furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) and two sureties in the like amount, with the condition that he shall make himself available for the purpose of investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer. Hamdast granted. JUDGE *sdw