Karnataka High Court
Akash M Patil vs State Of Karnataka By on 18 March, 2025
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:11059
CRL.P No. 695 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 698 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 695 OF 2025
(438(Cr.PC) / 482(BNSS))
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 698 OF 2025
(438(Cr.PC) / 482(BNSS))
IN CRL.P No. 695/2025
BETWEEN:
PRABHAT SHARMA
S/O SHISHU PAL SHARMA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESIDING AT #L-58,
SECTOR-11, NOIDA,
GAUTHAM BUDDHA NAGAR,
UTTAR PRADESH-201 301.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUNDARA RAMAN M.V., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by LAKSHMI T AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
KARNATAKA CEN POLICE STATION,
NORTH-EAST DIVISION,
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU CITY
REP BY: STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE- 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY MS. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL. SPP;
SRI. ANGAD KAMATH, MS. SLOKA B., SRI. SUYOG SATHYA,
ADVOCATES FOR DEFACTO COMPLAINANT)
NC: 2025:KHC:11059
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 CR.PC (FILED U/S 482
BNSS) PRAYING TO GRANT THE PETITIONER ANTICIPATORY
BAIL IN RELATION TO CRIME NO.1025/2024 FOR THE
OFFENCES U/S 66, 66(B), 66(C) OF THE INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2008 ALONG WITH SECTION 318(2),
318(3) AND 318(4) OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023,
REGISTERED BY CEN POLICE STATION, NORTH-EAST
DIVISION, BENGALURU AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
45TH A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
BETWEEN:
AKASH M. PATIL
S/O MADHUKAR PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.104, 'B' BLOCK,
NEW INDIA TANZANITE,
KOGILU LAYOUT, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU-560 064.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUNDARA RAMAN M.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
CEN POLICE STATION,
NORTH-EAST DIVISION,
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU CITY
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE- 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY MS. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL. SPP;
SRI. ANGAD KAMATH, MS. SLOKA B., SRI. SUYOG SATHYA,
ADVOCATES FOR DEFACTO COMPLAINANT)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 CR.PC (FILED U/S 482
BNSS) PRAYING TO GRANT THE PETITIONER ANTICIPATORY
BAIL IN RELATION TO CRIME NO.1025/2024 FOR THE
NC: 2025:KHC:11059
OFFENCES U/S 66, 66(B), 66(C) OF THE INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2008 ALONG WITH SECTION 318(2),
318(3) AND 318(4) OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023,
REGISTERED BY CEN POLICE STATION, NORTH-EAST
DIVISION, BENGALURU AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
45TH A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
DATE OF RESERVED THE ORDER : 14.02.2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE ORDER : 18.03.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CAV ORDER
These petitions are filed by accused Nos.1 and 3
seeking anticipatory bail in Cr.No.1025/2024 registered at
North East CEN Crime Police Station, for offences
punishable under Section 66(B), 66(C) of Information
Technology Act, 2000 (for short 'IT Act') and under
Section 318(2) (3) (4) of BNS, 2023.
2. Brief facts of the case are:
A complaint was lodged on 25.12.2024 by one
Sameer Joshi, CEO of NewSpace Research and
Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (for short 'NRT') alleging that
NC: 2025:KHC:11059
accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3, who were former employees of
complainant's company conspired to steal sensitive
information for the benefit of their current employer,
Lenviz Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (for short 'Lenviz'). Accused
No.1, who held the position of Vice President at the
complainant's company, is accused of operating
dishonestly as a Director of Lenviz, alongwith his wife,
accused No.4. Both accused Nos.1 and 4, shareholders in
Lenviz, alleged to have retained confidential information
obtained during their employment at the complainant's
company. Further, accused No.1, purportedly orchestrated
the theft of confidential data, including source codes, CAD
designs, copyrighted information, project files and other
proprietary information. It is alleged that accused No.1
utilized this stolen data to place a competing bid on behalf
of Lenviz for the Meher Baba Swarm Drone Competition-II,
thus causing irreparable loss and damage to the
complainant's company. Following the resignation of
accused Nos. 2 and 3, an IT audit of their laptops revealed
the existence of a separate Autodesk Fusion 360
NC: 2025:KHC:11059
workspace labeled "Lenviz Tech". It is alleged that accused
Nos.2 and 3 illegally hacked, copied, and shared highly
sensitive information including source codes and original
designs, with Lenviz. The said accused conspired to erase
the evidence related to the crime. The stolen information
was allegedly used by Lenviz to develop similar products
to those of the complainant's company and to secure
defense contracts, causing significant harm to the
complainant's business.
3. The LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru, rejected the anticipatory bail application
of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 respectively in
Crl.Misc.Nos.11937/2024 and 11938/2024 vide order
dated 13.01.2025. The trial Court has observed that the
petitioners being the ex-employee of the complainant's
company allegedly colluded to destabilize the national
defence data for illegal financial gain. The investigation
needs to thoroughly explore the data theft, its upload on
the dark web and the involvement of the accused and the
NC: 2025:KHC:11059
same has to be nipped at the threshold itself. The Court
has emphasized the importance of addressing data theft at
its root to safeguard the national security and as the
allegations are serious against the petitioners and the
investigation is under progress, anticipatory bail to the
petitioners was rejected.
4. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners,
learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for
defacto complainant.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for
petitioners are as under:
i. FIR lacks specific allegations against the
petitioners and that investigation was conducted without
any prima facie evidence of the offence.
ii. The Sessions Court erroneously held that,
petitioners were accused of destabilizing the national
defense data for illegal purposes and engaging in data
theft, which was deemed a menace that needed to be
NC: 2025:KHC:11059
nipped in the bud. However, there is no evidence on
record to substantiate such a threat to national defense,
nor there is any data, information or document indicating
data theft. Complaint does not indicate any threat to
national security and no offence under Section 66(F) of
the IT Act was established.
iii. Investigation would not be hindered by the
grant of anticipatory bail. Existence of a civil suit with
identical statements as in the complaint, filed much
earlier, and the extreme delay in filing the complaint after
the alleged date of the offence, further undermine the
credibility of the complaint.
iv. Conduct of the complainant and the respondent
demonstrates that the apprehension is justified. Despite
filing a civil suit on 25.11.2024, complainant has belatedly
filed a criminal complaint on 25.12.2024 ensuring that the
Commissioner appointed by the co-ordinate Bench of this
Court could not execute the warrant. This has been done
solely to abuse the process of law and harass.
NC: 2025:KHC:11059
v. Despite lacking proof of data theft, the
complainant prompted the police to conduct search and
seize the devices of the accused on the next day. The
respondent disregarded due process, failing to make a
report or list of seized assets or draw mahazar.
vi. The unlawful detention, arrest and public
parading of accused No.2 at his former office under the
complainant's instructions constitute serious legal
violations. These actions have led the petitioners to
apprehend their imminent arrest fearing similar unlawful
treatment. No incriminating material is found and no
chargesheet is filed till date.
vii. Complaint and FIR do not establish any
elements of alleged offences. Furthermore, respondent-
Police have taken law into their own hands during
investigation.
viii. The respondent, in contempt of this Court's
order, has already seized all media devices and relevant
documents related to this case. There is nothing left to be
NC: 2025:KHC:11059
recovered from the petitioners herein. The entire case
relies on electronic evidence and documents in the custody
of the police. There is no possibility of devices and
documents being tampered with. Arresting these
petitioners would be unnecessary and would only serve to
coerce a confession from the petitioners while in custody.
ix. Petitioners have deep roots in the society and a
reputation for professionalism among their peers. They
have no criminal antecedents and are the sole
breadwinners of their families. There is no material
evidence to show that the petitioners are a flight risk.
x. Respondent police have flouted multiple
procedural rules established by the BNSS and the Courts.
The petitioners have cooperated with the police voluntarily
appearing before them and submitting all the devices to
the I.O. Despite holding the petitioners' devices for over
20 days, the respondent has not made out any case
against the petitioners, and there is no prima facie case
requiring their immediate arrest. No prejudice will be
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11059
caused, if anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners
and they are willing to abide by any conditions imposed by
this Court.
6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel
has placed reliance on the following decisions:-
a. Chethan v. The State of Karnataka,
Crl.P. 103890/2024 dd.21.01.2025
b. Ramesh Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2023)
7 SCC 461
c. Sushila Agarwal and others v. State (NCT of
Delhi) and others (2020) 5 SCC 1.
d. Ramappa @ Ramesh v. State of Karnataka
Crl.P.1052/2024 DD.22.06.2021
e. Pinapala Uday Bhushan v. The State of Andhra
Pradesh, Crl.P.No.1052/2024 DD.26.03.2024
7. Learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent-
State has vehemently opposed for granting anticipatory
bail and filed statement of objections. The contentions of
the learned Addl. SPP are as under:
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11059
i. Accused No.2 unlawfully accessed and copied
the confidential data including source codes, CAD designs
and flight controller parameters belonging to the
complainant's company. Forensic analysis confirmed the
misappropriation of this data by Lenviz to develop
competing products causing significant harm to the
complainant. Further, unauthorized bid submission for the
Meher Baba Swarm Drone Competition-II facilitated by the
petitioner/accused No. 1 using stolen data, constitutes
corporate espionage and breach of trust.
ii. The data stolen by accused No. 1, in collusion
with other accused persons, includes proprietary software
and designs for high-altitude drones developed by the
complainant's company, which are used by Indian defence
forces for border security. The custodial interrogation of
the petitioner/accused No.1 is imperative to uncover the
full extent of the data theft, retrieve encrypted and
concealed digital evidence and track unlawful utilization of
the stolen information in defence related projects.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11059
iii. A notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. was
issued to the petitioner/accused No.1 on 27.12.2024,
requiring his appearance before the I.O. on 31.12.2024.
However, deliberate non-compliance with the said notice
by the said petitioner exhibits lack of cooperation with the
investigation and constitutes a direct affront to the due
process of law.
iv. Investigation reveals that stolen proprietary
data and digital records may have been stored in cloud-
based environments placing them beyond the immediate
reach of law enforcement authorities. Custodial
interrogation of the petitioners is imperative to decrypt
and access such digital evidence, thereby ascertaining full
extent of the conspiracy and identifying its beneficiaries.
v. Considering gravity of the offence, if
anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, at this stage,
it would irreparably hamper the ongoing investigation and
they may tamper the witnesses or abscond, as they lack
permanent residence in Bengaluru.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11059
vi. Granting bail to accused will set a wrong
precedent and convey adverse message to the Society.
Therefore, it is prayed that the anticipatory bail petitions
preferred by the petitioners be rejected by imposing
exemplary costs.
8. In support of her contentions, the learned Addl.
SPP has cited the following decisions:
a. Rakesh Baban Borhade vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2015) 2 SCC 313.
b. Rajesh Yadav vs, CBI, (2007) 1 SCC 70
9. Learned counsel appearing for defacto
complainant has also vehemently opposed for granting
anticipatory bail to the petitioners and has filed statement
of objections. His contentions are reiterated as under:
i. The complainant-NRT was incorporated in 2017
and specializes in the development of aerospace and
defense research. Its clientele includes government
agencies such as the Indian Army, Air Force, Navy, BEL,
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11059
Hindustan Aeronautics, and DRDO, emphasizing highly
sensitive nature of its business and its focus on national
security.
ii. The complainant's operations are governed by
stringent confidentiality and security protocols. These
products play a critical role in national security as all
transactions involving government agencies and defense
organizations are subject to strict confidentiality
agreements. Any unauthorized divulgence undermines
client trust and can have serious repercussions for national
security.
iii. Petitioner/accused no.1-Prabhat Sharma,
served as the Vice President of the complainant company
had access to sensitive and confidential information
including source codes, CAD drawings, flight controller
parameters and other proprietary data. During his tenure,
complainant's company was unaware that
petitioner/accused No.1 held a dual role as Director and
Shareholder in Lenviz, a direct competitor. He concealed
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11059
his involvement in a UAV tender from the complainant and
used his position to benefit the rival company at the
expense of the complainant.
iv. Petitioner/accused No.1 recruited accused Nos.
2 and 3, who worked in the autonomous division system
and were given access to critical project data. These
accused were entrusted with confidential information and
it was not known to the complainant that accused No.1
was recruiting them to steal proprietary information and
transfer it to Lenviz for the benefit of the rival firm.
v. The complainant discovered the wrongdoing
when petitioner/accused No.1, who was authorized to
place a bid for the Meher Baba Swarm Drone Competition-
II on behalf of the complainant, instead placed a
competing bid on behalf of Lenviz. It is suspected that
this bid was based on confidential information that
petitioner/accused No.1 had obtained during his tenure
with the complainant. This led to an internal investigation.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11059
vi. When confronted, petitioner/accused No.1
admitted that he violated the commitments and
contractual obligations by participating in the M-Prize
Phase II competition on behalf of Lenviz. He further
admitted that being the controlling director of Lenviz and
accused No.4 wife of petitioner/accused N0.1 i.e.,
Mrs.Garima Sharma, Shareholder, submitted a bid through
Lenviz.
vii. Upon termination, petitioner/accused No.1
executed a declaration dated 12.01.2023, undertaking to
refrain from using information acquired during his tenure
and to return any proprietary information in possession of
both himself and his wife. Subsequently, in 2024, accused
Nos.1 to 3 resigned from the complainant's company.
viii. The complainant's company investigation
revealed that accused Nos.2 and 3 had copied large
volumes of sensitive and confidential data. Company
laptop of accused No.2 showed a separate workspace
under the name "Lenviz_Tech" on his AutoDesk Fusion
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11059
360 account, indicating the use of proprietary data for the
rival firm. Further, forensic analysis by Secure Info
Solutions OPC Pvt. Ltd. (SIS) confirmed that accused No.2
systematically stole and transferred sensitive data to
Lenviz, which used the information to develop competing
products. The stolen data was used by the accused
persons to secure lucrative contracts with defense
organizations.
ix. The defacto complainant filed a suit in
O.S.No.8367/2024 seeking injunctive reliefs and filed
I.A.No.3 under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC, seeking
appointment of a Court Commissioner to seize the
computer, laptop and other data in possession of the
accused. However, the trial court issued notice.
Aggrieved by this, the complainant filed Writ Petition
No.32999/2024 before this Hon'ble Court, which issued an
ex-parte order appointing a Court Commissioner to seize
and draw up an inventory. Despite the Court
Commissioner having a warrant to inspect the premises of
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11059
the accused, he was prevented from entering and drawing
up the inventory.
x. The Court Commissioner's report was presented
before this Court and the matter was considered on its
merits. The Court, disposed of the writ petition on
29.01.2025, noting that intellectual property is a crucial
form of property. The main purpose of permitting search
and seizure without prior notice is to prevent evidence
tampering in intellectual property cases, especially when
the plaintiff i.e., complainant's company has an extremely
strong prima facie case that the actual or potential
damage is very serious and there is a real possibility of
evidence destruction.
xi. The offence committed by these petitioners
involves systematic and premeditated corporate espionage
affecting economic and national security interests. The
petitioners still have access to stolen confidential data and
given their financial resources and business connections,
there is a high flight risk and possibility of tampering with
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11059
electronic evidence that is yet to be fully recovered and
analyzed. The investigation would require custodial
interrogation.
xii. If the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail,
a) they may delete or alter critical forensic evidence
before it can be examined. b) use insider knowledge of
the victim organization's Information Technology
infrastructure to further compromise security systems and
c) collude with co-conspirators to manipulate the records
and frustrate the ongoing investigation.
xiii. Non-compliance with Section 41A Cr.P.C. Notice
indicates deliberate non-cooperation, disqualifying the
accused from discretionary relief. The accused
intentionally avoided the Notice to evade investigation,
which disqualifies them from seeking anticipatory bail.
Such non-compliance suggests evidence concealment and
tampering as the data theft involves digital evidence that
could be erased. Custodial interrogation aims to recover
the stolen data. Their failure to appear before the
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11059
respondent-Police suggests an intent to destroy evidence,
indicating interference with the investigation and delaying
forensic analysis. Section 41A Cr.P.C. is not a absolute
right, however it is a procedural safeguard that
necessitates co-operation with the investigating agency.
10. In support of his contentions, learned counsel
appearing for defacto complainant has placed reliance
upon following decisions:
a. Sumitha Pradeed v. Arun kumar C.K. (2022) 17
SCC 391
b. Sourish Bose v. State of Karnataka,
c. State, CBI v. Anil Sharma, 1997 (4) RCR (Crl)
11. A preliminary objection was raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant has
no locus standi to oppose the bail application. He has
relied on para 33 of Ramesh Kumar's case (supra) which
reads as follows:
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11059
'33. We hold that at this stage, the
complainants have no right of audience before this
Court or even the High Court having regard to the
nature of offence alleged to have been committed
by the appellant unless, of course, a situation for
compounding of the offence under Section 420IPC,
with the permission of the court, arises.'
Relying on 'Chetan's case' (supra), he contended that
application under Section 301(2) r/w 24(8) of Cr.P.C.,
would be applicable only to trial and enquiries and not at
stage of consideration of bail application.
Placing reliance on the judgments in 'Sri Ramappa @
Ramesh' (supra) and 'Pinapala Uday Bhushan', the learned
counsel has contended that even when a notice is issued
under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C., the apprehension of
arrest does not completely vanish away and under such
circumstance the Courts cannot evade to entertain an
application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Relying on the judgment in Sushila Agrawal's case
(supra), it is contended that the anticipatory bail does not
in any manner restrict or limit the rights or duties of police
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11059
or investigating agencies and Section 438 of Cr.P.C.,
cannot be time bound.
12. It is relevant to extract paras 23 and 24 in the
case of Jagjeet Singh and others VS. Ashish Mishra @
Monu and another reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC)
376.
"23. A "victim" within the meaning of CrPC
cannot be asked to await the commencement of
trial for asserting his/her right to participate in the
proceedings. He/She has a legally vested right to
be heard at every step post the occurrence of an
offence. Such a "victim" has unbridled participatory
rights from the stage of investigation till the
culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or
revision. We may hasten to clarify that "victim" and
"complainant/informant" are two distinct
connotations in criminal jurisprudence. It is not
always necessary that the complainant/informant is
also a "victim", for even a stranger to the act of
crime can be an "informant", and similarly, a
"victim" need not be the complainant or informant
of a felony.
24. The above stated enunciations are not to
be conflated with certain statutory provisions, such
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11059
as those present in the Special Acts like the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989, where there is a legal
obligation to hear the victim at the time of granting
bail. Instead, what must be taken note of is that:
24.1.First, the Indian jurisprudence is
constantly evolving, whereby, the right of victims
to be heard, especially in cases involving heinous
crimes, is increasingly being acknowledged.
24.2.Second, where the victims themselves
have come forward to participate in a criminal
proceeding, they must be accorded with an
opportunity of a fair and effective hearing. If the
right to file an appeal against acquittal, is not
accompanied with the right to be heard at the time
of deciding a bail application, the same may result
in grave miscarriage of justice. Victims certainly
cannot be expected to be sitting on the fence and
watching the proceedings from afar, especially
when they may have legitimate grievances. It is
the solemn duty of a court to deliver justice before
the memory of an injustice eclipses.
13. In the aforesaid judgment the Apex Court has
also observed that High Court or a Sessions Court, as the
case may be, are bestowed with considerable discretion
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11059
while deciding an application for bail. This discretion is not
unfettered, but has to be exercised judiciously, cautiously
and strictly in compliance with the basic principles as laid
down in plethora of decisions.
14. In Rakesh Baban Burhade (supra) it is held that
anticipatory bail not to be granted as a matter of rule, but
should be granted only when a special case is made out,
and the Court is convinced that the accused will not
misuse his liberty.
15. The relevant observations made by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Rajesh Yadav V. CBI (supra) is as follows:
' We are of the opinion that while it is true
that Article 21 is of great importance because it
enshrines the fundamental right to individual
liberty, but at the same time a balance has to be
struck between the right to individual liberty and
the interest of society. No right can be absolute,
and reasonable restrictions can be placed on them.
While it is true that one of the considerations in
deciding whether to grant bail to an accused or not
is whether he has been in jail for a long time, the
court has also to take into consideration other facts
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11059
and circumstances, such as the interest of the
society.'
16. In Sumita Pradeep V. Arun Kumar C.K. (supra),
the Apex Court has addressed the principles governing the
grant of anticipatory bail. The judgment clarifies that the
Court must first assess the prima facie case against the
accused and then evaluate the nature and severity of the
offence before deciding on anticipatory bail. Custodial
interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline
anticipatory bail, however, even if custodial interrogation
is not required or necessitated, by itself cannot be a
ground to grant anticipatory bail.
17. It is well settled that, while considering a bail
application, Court should refrain from evaluating or
undertaking detailed assessment of evidence, as the same
is not a relevant consideration at the threshold stage. The
Court may examine prima facie issues, including any
reasonable grounds whether the accused committed an
offence.
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11059
18. The allegations are that accused Nos.1 to 3,
former employees of complainant's company conspired to
steal sensitive information for the benefit of their current
employer 'Lenviz'. The accused are alleged to have
retained the confidential information obtained during their
employment at the complainant's company. Accused No.1
orchestrated the theft of confidential data, including
source codes, CAD designs, Copyrighted information,
project files and other proprietary information. It is stated
that following the resignation of accused Nos.2 and 3, an
IT audit of their laptops revealed the existence of a
separate Autodesk Fusion 360 workspace labeled 'Lenviz
Tech'. The accused are alleged to have hacked, copied
and shared highly sensitive information including source
codes and original designs, with Lenviz.
19. The complainant - NRT is said to be specialized
in the development of Aerospace and defence research.
Government agencies such as the Indian Army, Air Force,
Navy, BEL, Hindustan Aeronautics and DRDO are said to
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11059
be its clients, which emphasizes the highly sensitive
nature of its business. The operations are said to be
governed by stringent confidentiality and security
protocols, hence, play a critical role in national security.
Therefore, any unauthorized divulgence can have serious
repercussions.
20. It cannot be said that there is no prima facie
case against the petitioners. Granting pre-arrest bail can
significantly hamper the investigation, particularly in
collecting useful information and uncovering concealed
materials. Courts must exercise caution when granting
anticipatory bail, specially in cyber economic crimes.
Custodial interrogation is necessary, due to the technical
nature of the crime and to reveal full extent of data theft
and its concealment methods. The petitioners actions
show their ability and willingness to destroy and tamper
with evidence. Preliminary findings would establish that
the petitioners continued to access, retain and use
proprietary information even after their resignation and
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11059
demonstrates a deliberate attempt to misappropriate data
for unlawful benefits, constituting a prima facie case.
Granting anticipatory bail could jeopardize investigation
and may frustrate the investigating agency in
interrogating the accused and collecting useful information
and may weaken the ability of law enforcement agencies
to combat sophisticated cyber crimes.
21. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the
considered view that the petitioners are not entitled for
anticipatory bail.
Petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
HB
Ct:ar
