Sunildhar Sheshadhar Sharma v. State of Maharashtra

Sachet SahniCase SummaryLeave a Comment

Sunildhar Sheshadhar Sharma v. State of Maharashtra

Sunildhar Sheshadhar Sharma v. State of Maharashtra
In the Bombay High Court
Bail Application No. 320 of 2015
Before Justice Mridula Bhatkar
Decided on March 31, 2015

Relevancy of the case: Whether bail can be granted to an accused when it is alleged that he has stolen data from his ex-employer and used it for the benefit of his own company?

Statutes & Provisions Involved
• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 43, 66, 66(d))
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 406, 420, 507)

Relevant Facts of the Case
The applicant obtained a job in the company Sava Healthcare Ltd. (herein referred to as the company), wherein he was working as a Vice President (HR). The applicant was appointed as a General Manager on 9.4.13. and he accepted all the terms and conditions for the same. However, he breached some important conditions of the company as he already had a company, namely M/s Corise HealthCare Pvt. Ltd. which was in existence since 4.7.2012. He had hidden that information from the company when he was in the job and thereafter resigning, he used that data for production and marketing of some veterinary products and pharmaceuticals and caused wrongful loss to the company and wrongful gain to him.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates
• The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant’s company was non-functional and no misuse of information was done for his own company. He submitted that the products marketed by his company are generic in nature and there cannot be any such trademark.
• The learned prosecutor opposing the application submitted that the applicant has not given his email ids and has not disclosed the information in respect of emails sent in respect of the company. He further submitted that the applicant has violated all the terms in the letter of appointment and has misused the money and important data of the company for his benefit by using the email id to syphon off the information and has committed a breach of trust.

Opinion of the Bench
It appears that the applicant has used the information for his company which he got when he was working. It is more or less of a business competition in the corporate sector and for which custodial interrogation is not required.

Final Decision
The interim bail granted is confirmed and the applicant is directed to attend the police station every Thursday between 4 to 6 pm till 30.04.2015 and if not possible due to the illness of his father, then he shall intimate the police and attend next Thursday.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *