1 2025:CGHC:8366 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1352 of 2025 Devbrat Banerjee S/o Shri Dilip Kumar Banerjee Aged About 39 Years R/o Plot No.12, Street No.8, Ashish Nagar West, Risali, Police Station Newai, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. T.K.Jha along with Mr. Aman Tamboli, Advocates. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Government Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.02.2025 1. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 767/2024 registered at Police Station - Khamtarai, District - Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 34 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Sections 66(D) PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.02.19 11:01:11 +0530 2 of I.T. Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, namely, Manoj Parasrampuriya made a complaint to the Police stating that he is the Managing Director of Indo Chains Raipur Pvt. Ltd. On 13/06/2022, the applicant Devbrat Banerjee was appointed as Sales and Marketing Manager. It is alleged that on 18/09/2024, the complainant came to know from one of his agent that wife of the applicant is running a business in the name and style of Constromac Engineering Solutions and she deals in the same product to that of his company. It has been alleged by the complainant that the applicant along with the other co-accused persons has misused the secret information such as drawing and designs of complainant's company's products and used it for his personal gain and for purpose of business. It is alleged that the company of present applicant's wife is selling the products at a lower price which is causing loss to the complainant. It is alleged that some purchase orders of his company have been forged to be shown as belonging to applicant's wife's company to attract the customers. Based on these allegations, the instant crime has been registered and the applicant has been put behind bars. Hence this application for grant of bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that though the first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on technical ground by this Court vide order 27.01.2025 passed in MCRC No. 740/2025. He further submits that there is no evidence of any offence as alleged against the applicant. As per the FIR, it appears that the complaint has been made to pressurize the 3 competitors of business to bow down towards the complainant so that he can run his monopoly in the market. It is a case of business rivalry where one company is selling products at a higher price and the customers are purchasing products from the other company because the same products are available at a lower price. He also submits that the wife of the applicant and the applicant have been running their business prior to the applicant’s joining at the complainant’s office and the complainant was well aware about the business having been run by the applicant and his wife. He later submits that the complainant has lodged the FIR against the applicant just to harass the applicant and his family members. He also submits that the anticipatory bail application filed by the wife of the applicant was allowed by this Court in MCRCA No. 1247/2024 on 25.10.2024 whereas the anticipatory bail application filed by the other co-accused person Deepak Sah was dismissed in MCRCA No. 1260/2024 on 25.10.2024. It is further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant surrendered on 30.09.2024 before the JMFC, Raipur. Therefore, he prays that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed. He further submits that the applicant along with other co-accused persons has misused the secret information of complainant’s company’s products and used it for his personal gain and for purpose of business. Hence, he is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 6. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, nature and gravity of allegation made against the applicant and the fact that though the first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn on technical grounds, further, as per the FIR, it appears that the complaint has been made to pressurize the competitors of business to bow down towards the complainant so that he can run his monopoly in the market, also considering the fact that it is a case of business rivalry where one company is selling products at a higher price and the customers are purchasing products from the other company because the same products are available at a lower price, further the charge- sheet has been filed and the applicant surrendered on 30.09.2024 before the JMFC, Raipur and the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, further the anticipatory bail application filed by the wife of the applicant was allowed by this Court in MCRCA No. 1247/2024 on 25.10.2024, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 7. Accordingly, the Second bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Devbrat Banerjee, involved in Crime No. 767/2024 registered at Police Station - Khamtarai, District - Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 34 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Sections 66(D) of I.T. Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to 5 treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of BNS. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of BNS. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti