Prem Aildasani vs State Of M.P. & Another

The applicant has filed this second / repeat bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.447/2017

registered at Police Station â€" Pithampur, Dhar(M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 408, 409, 447-A and 120-B of IPC and under

Sections 67 and 72 of Information and Technology Act, 2000.

The applicant's first bail application bearing M.Cr.C. No.7344/2020 has been dismissed on merit vide order dated 2/03/2020.

According to the prosecution case, the complainant â€"Shashi M.N. who is working as General Manager of Company named as “Simbiotic

Pharma Lab Pvt. Ltd.†and the said Company is involved in business of manufacturing Steroids and Hormones. It is alleged that co-accused/Devdutt

Pandya and Rashmi Nigam while working in the complainant's Company have obtained the aforesaid Company's data pertaining to formula for

manufacturing few products namely; Dexamethasone and Prednisolone. Thereafter, both the co-accused have breached the Company's Code of

Conduct and have fraudulently sent the data through their personal e-mail ID regarding formula of the complainant's manufactured medicines to one

co-accused/Himanshu Choudhary, who happens to be a employee of the applicant's Company named as Balaji Steroid and Hormones Pvt. Ltd.

It was also alleged in the complaint that the applicant through his employee and co-accused â€" Himanshu Choudhary has induced the co-accused

Devdutt Pandya and Rashmi Nigam for obtaining the data pertaining to the formula of medicines manufactured by the complainant's Company. On

such complaint, Police Station-Pithampur, District-Dhar registered FIR bearing crime No.447/2017 under aforementioned sections.

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that this second bail application is maintainable even though the first bail application was dismissed

on merit. For the said purpose, he relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Bhagirathsingh Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (1984) 1

SCC 284 and Mohan Raikwar Vs. State of M.P. reported in (1999) 2 MPLJ 663. He further submits that while dismissing the first bail application, this

Court has not considered the documentary evidence produced by the applicant. He further submits that prima facie no case is made out against the

applicant, therefore, this second bail application deserves to be allowed. He further submits that the Court below has failed to reach the erroneous

conclusion that the applicant was absconding from the year 2017 and the non-applicant has prepared as many as three absconding memos dated

20/02/2018, 16/06/2018 and 26/08/2019 while searching the applicant. On the contrary, the present applicant has never absconded and was residing at

his home only. The non-applicant has never even attempted to search the applicant and the absconding memos prepared by the non-applicant

appeared to be an eyewash. He further submits that the applicant is a reputed pharmaceutical businessman and travels abroad frequently for his

business purpose, the applicant travelled abroad as many as 15 times between 15/11/2017 to 30/09/2019. Further the findings recorded by this Court is

also erroneous that the applicant is a habitual offender and there are many cases registered against him in different cities. The aforesaid findings were

recorded only on the basis of misleading and incorrect submissions made by the objector. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, learned Senior

Counsel for the applicant submits that the second bail application be allowed and the applicant be released on bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the objector opposed this repeat bail application. He submits that applicant is an habitual offender and there

are number of cases registered against him in different cities. It is further submitted that in this second bail application filed by the applicant, learned

Senior Counsel for the applicant has failed to point out any change in the circumstances. He further submits that the learned Senior Counsel cannot

argue the matter on merits because earlier bail application was dismissed by this Court on merits and the judgment relied by the learned Senior

Counsel for the applicant would not be applicable in the facts and of the present case.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant/State also submits that there is prima facie evidence against the present applicant and, therefore,

on this ground his first bail application was dismissed on merit. There is no change in the circumstances after dismissal of the first bail application. She

further submits that the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has not made out any ground in this second second bail application for releasing the

applicant on bail on the basis of change in the circumstances. Only on the basis of rejection of the first bail application the second bail application has

been filed by the applicant. She further submits that no new ground has been made out by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant to release the

applicant on bail and even if the arguments raised by the learned Senior Counsel is accepted then it would amount to review of its earlier order, which

is impermissible in criminal law. Therefore, she prays for rejection of this repeat bail application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the case diary.

In the present case, the applicant earlier filed the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr..C. bearing M.Cr.C. No.7344/2020 which was

dismissed on merit vide order dated 02/03/2020. Thereafter, this repeat/second bail application has been filed. Learned Senior Counsel for the

applicant has failed to point out any change in the circumstances after rejection of the first bail application on merit. He only raised all those grounds

which have been raised by him in the first bail application. No new grounds has been pleaded in this repeat bail application. If his bail application is

allowed then it would amount to review of its earlier order which is impermissible in criminal law. So far as judgment relied by the learned Senior

Counsel for the applicant is concerned, that is on different footing. In that case, the learned trial Judge has not properly considered the facts of the

case, therefore the Court has held that even though the first bail application has been rejected on merits the second bail application is maintainable.

In the present case, that is not the situation. While dismissing the first bail application this Court has taken into consideration all the facts and

circumstances of the case and thereafter rejected the said bail application. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere into this repeat bail

application.

There is no change in the circumstances to consider this repeat bail application.

In the light of the aforesaid, no case for grant of bail as prayed is mad out. The repeat bail application filed by the applicant has no merit and is,

accordingly, dismissed.