Prabuddha Daronde v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi)

1. The petitioners have filed the present petitions, inter alia, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 168/2019, under Sections 420/34 oftheIPG,registered with PS Sarita Vihar.

2. The said FIR was filed at the instance ofM/s DSS Takara Bio India Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter 'DSS'). It was stated that the petitioner in Bail Application No. 2389/2019(Mr Prabuddha Daronde)and the petitioner in Bail Application No. 2450/2019(Mr Ameya Bhagat) were employees of DSS. It is alleged that they had opened another concern, namely AAC Biosolutions, as a sole proprietorship concern of Sh. Ashok Mulay (the father-in-law of Ameya Bhagat). They had effectively diverted a large portion oftheir business ofDSS to AAC Biosolutions. It is stated that the modus operandi was to direct the inquiries made by various customers and supplygoodsfrom DSStothe said concern athighly discounted prices. The sameresulted in AACBiosolutions,thefirm beingrun bySh.Ashok Mulay, earning substantialprofits,which were otherwiseduetoDSS.Thecomplaint also alleged thatboth,MrPrabuddhaDaronde and Mr AmeyaBhagat,were in key positionsto effectively divertthe sales ofDSS.

3. It is also alleged that Sh. Daronde and Sh. Bhagat had introduced AACBiosolutionstoDSS and had ensuredthataDealership Agreementwas entered into between DSS and AAC Biosolutions. The said agreement granted non-exclusive rights to AAC Biosolutions to sell certain products in Mumbai and certain parts in Pune.

4. It is further alleged that the said modus operandi of the petitioners was discovered when it wasfound thatthere was a sharp decline in the sales and profit ofDSS in the western region.

5. It is alleged that a loss ofapproximately ^31 lakhs has been caused to DSS by the petitioners.

6. It is seen from the above that the allegations made can be investigated by verifying the relevant documents, including bank statements. The petitioners have joined the investigation and there is lio allegation that they have not supplied the documents,as required by the Investigating Officer.

7. Mr Pujari, learned counsel appearing for the DSS/complainant states that the petitioners are not cooperating with the Investigating Officer. He submits that Mr Daronde and Mr Bhagat were provided laptops by DSS for the purposes ofits business. The said laptops were returned by them butthe same did not contain the relevant data, as they had deleted all data from these laptops. Tlius,the said petitioners are also in possession ofdata,which they have not provided to DSS. The records ofthe transactions entered into by DSS should be available with it and,primafacie,it is difficult to accept, at this stage, that the relevant data was maintained only in digital form on the hard disk ofthe laptops provided to Mr Prabuddha Daronde and Ameya Bhagat.

8. Considering the circumstances ofthis case,this Court is persuaded to allow the petitioners. The petitioners are granted anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of^10,000/- each with two sureties of an equivalent amount each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/SHO. This is subject to the petitioner's continuing to join the investigation and cooperating with the Investigating Officer. The petitioners shall provide all documents that are available with them to the Investigating Officer as and when asked for. The petitioners shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.

9. It is directed that this order will inure to the benefit ofthe petitioners only till the chargesheetis filed.

10. The petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The pending applications are also disposed of.

11. Order dasti under signatures ofthe Court Master. VIBHUBAKHRU,J MARCH 04,2020 RK