Hemant Kumr Thakur vs State of Maharashtra

Adv. Subhash Jha, Senior Counsel (through V. C.), Mr. Siddharth Jha a/w Ashish Saxena i/b Law Global for the Applicants. Adv. Supriya Kak, APP for the State in ABA/3017/2024. Adv. Anand S. Shalgaonkar, APP for the State in ABA/3026/2024. Adv. Sagar Talekar for Respondent No. 2. API Poonam Ruge, Sakinaka Police Station in both ABA.

¶14

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATED : MARCH 10, 2025

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

These applications are filed under Section 482 of the

¶17

1

¶18

Harish

¶19

9-10-ABA-3017-2024.doc

¶20

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C. R. No.724/2024 registered with Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai, for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶21

The advocate for the applicants submits that the applicant (Hemant Kumar Thakur) has attended the office of the investigating officer on 12 times and the applicant (Ratnesh Kumar Baidyanath Chaudhary) has attended the office of the investigating officer on 8 times.

¶22

This Court has put a query to the advocate appearing for the first informant and to the APP that this is a case where according to the FIR, the applicant Hemant Kumar Thakur was working with the first informant’s company and the applicant Ratnesh Kumar Baidyanath Chaudhary is also stated to be a partner in TLP India. The said company deals into pharmaceutical products by way of manufacturing and marketing the same. The allegation as far as the Hemant Kumar Thakur is concerned, it has been alleged that he started his own company by name TLP and in fact, he represented to the public at large that, the said company TLP and Tulip Lab Pvt. Ltd. are one and the same company. Though he changed the logo from that of the Tulip Lab Pvt. Ltd., however, he has cheated the company and there is a criminal breach of trust by him. Therefore, the custody of the present applicants

¶23

2

¶24

Harish

¶25

9-10-ABA-3017-2024.doc

¶26

is necessary.

¶27

The learned APP submits that as per the investigating officer, the statements of both the applicants are recorded and the investigation is almost compete and they are in the process of filing the charge-sheet.

¶28

In view of the same since, the applicants have co-operated and the charge-sheet is almost ready. The dispute appears to be more of civil nature and particularly deals with IPR related issue. According to me, case is made out by the present applicants to grant the anticipatory bail in both anticipatory bail applications. Hence, I pass the following order.

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(a) The anticipatory bail applications are allowed.

¶31

(b) In the event of arrest in connection with C.R.No.724/2024 registered with Sakinaka Police Station, the applicants shall be released on bail, on furnishing P.R. bond to the extent of Rs.30,000/- each with one or two sureties each of the like amount.

¶32

(c) The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and attend the investigating officer of the concerned police station on 19/3/2025 and 27/3/2025 between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and thereafter, as and when called for.

¶33

3

¶34

Harish

¶35

9-10-ABA-3017-2024.doc

¶36

(d) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of case so as to dissuade them from disclosing the facts to Court or any Police Officer and shall not tamper with evidence.

¶37

(e) The applicants shall furnish details of their residential addresses, contact numbers and email addresses to the Investigating Officer.

¶38