HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.11088 of 2024

ORDER :

Apprehending arrest in Crime No.842 of 2024 of P.S.

Uppal, Rachakonda, registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420 of IPC and Sections 43A, 72,72A of IT Act, 2008, the petitioner/accused No.8 has come up with this application for anticipatory bail.

2. Heard Sri N.Jeevan Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and perused the record.

3. The allegation against the petitioner/accused No.8 is that he along with other accused, who worked in the Complainant’s Company and some of them still working, have shared the confidential information relating to the complainant’s Company i.e. DataM with another Company i.e. IRC Pvt. Ltd., thereby, diverted the clients and caused loss of revenue to the complainant’s Company.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.8 submits that though the petitioner is in no way concerned with the offences alleged, he has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the petitioner was relieved from the Company on 11.03.2024 and while he was working there, his duties relate only to graphic design and had no access to sensitive or priority information. He further submits that there is no evidence that he was intended to cause harm to the complainant’s Company. He further submits that most part of the investigation is completed and hence, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail stating that the petitioner/accused No.8 and other accused, at the time of their appointment in the complainant’s Company, have entered into non-disclosure agreements with the complainant’s Company, which they breached now, by conspiring to start similar business under “IRC Pvt. Ltd.”, and thereby diverted the clients and revenue of the complainant’s Company and caused significant financial and reputational damage to DataM intelligence. Thus, he submits that the petitioner/accused No.8 and other accused have committed criminal breach of trust by sharing confidential information. He further submits that investigation is in progress and charge sheet is yet to be filed and if the petitioner/accused No.8 is released on bail at this stage, he may tamper with the evidence and may threaten the witnesses, and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Taking note of the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and considering the gravity and seriousness of the offences alleged and since prima facie it appears that the petitioner herein, along with others, have breached the non-disclosure agreements entered with the complainant’s Company, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail at this stage.

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.

____________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date:30.10.2024 Ksk