[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shri. Rakshagan Balaji @ Sriratchagan ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:19761
CRL.P No. 12725 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12725 OF 2025 (438(Cr.PC)/
482(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SHRI. RAKSHAGAN BALAJI @ SRIRATCHAGAN BALAJI
S/O. BALAJI
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
FLAT NO.M-408,
VGN STAFFORD SUDHARASNAM STREET,
4TH FLOOR, THIRUMALAIVASAN NAGAR,
THIRUMULLAIVOYAL, THIRUVALLUR
TAMILNADU-600062
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KARTHIK N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY WEST CEN CRIME POLICE STATION,
Digitally REPRESENTED BY THE
signed by STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HEMALATHA
J HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Location: BENGALURU - 560 001.
HIGH COURT ...RESPONDENT
OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYAM, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE BHARATIYA
NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023, (438 OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST
IN CR.NO.286/2025 DATED 30.07.2025 OF WEST CEN CRIME POLICE
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:19761
CRL.P No. 12725 of 2025
HC-KAR
STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 66 AND 66(C) OF THE I.T ACT 2000 AND SEC.318(4) OF
THE BNS 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 47TH ADDL.C.M.M
COURT NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGLAURU CITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bhartiya
Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (henceforth referred to as
'BNSS' for short) seeking anticipatory bail in Cr.No.286/2025
registered by West CEN police for the offences punishable
under Sections 66 and 66(C) of the Information Technology
Act, 2000 and Section 318(4) of BNS, 2023.
2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that the
complainant is the owner of Reverse Osmosis Store, Bengaluru
which is a wholesale and retail supplier of water and waste
water treatment equipments. The complainant was using
Vyapar billing software for billing, sales, purchase, stocking,
estimates and inventory etc., The complainant claimed that his
cousin met him on 28.07.2025 and told him that Vyapar Billing
NC: 2026:KHC:19761
HC-KAR
Software data can be accessed by accused No.1, an employee
of Vyapar. The complainant alleged that accused No.2 who is
the director of Water DNA Private Limited was accessing the RO
store, Chennai data through accused No.1. This information
was purportedly received from an ex-employee of Water DNA
Private Limited. Based on the said information, respondent
No.1 registered Crime No.286/2025 for the aforesaid offences
and commenced investigation.
3. The petitioner filed a petition in
Crl.Misc.No.7019/2025 under Section 482 BNSS, before the
District Court, which was rejected in terms of an order dated
22.08.2025. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that a perusal of the information furnished by the complainant
before respondent No.1 would show that the petitioner is
arraigned as accused No.2 merely on suspicion. It is alleged
that the petitioner being the Director of Water DNA Private
Limited, was accessing the Vyapar billing software data of RO
Store, Chennai for about one-and-a-half years prior to the date
of the crime and that he had purchased the same from accused
NC: 2026:KHC:19761
HC-KAR
No.1 in exchange for licences/money. This purportedly was the
information received from an ex-employee of Water DNA
Private Limited. He therefore contends that there is no material
to implicate the petitioner except the self-serving statement of
the complainant. He further contends that the offences alleged
against the petitioner are neither punishable with death nor
imprisonment for life and that there is no likelihood of the
petitioner tampering with the evidence or interfering with the
course of investigation, as everything can be gathered from the
data of the complainant. Thus, he contends that the petitioner
is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in the event of his
arrest in Cr.No.286/2025.
5. The learned High Court Government Pleader
however opposed the petition and contended that the custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to find out whether
the petitioner had access to the data of the complainant's
company and whether accused No.1 had shared or sought help
of accused No.1 to access the said data and part it for
consideration. He thus contends that the petitioner is needed
for custodial interrogation.
NC: 2026:KHC:19761
HC-KAR
6. I have considered submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent.
7. A perusal of the information furnished by the
complainant to respondent shows that the petitioner is
arraigned as accused No.2 on mere suspicion that he being a
director of a company, had brokered with the accused No.1 for
securing confidential details of the complainant's company. If
such access or sharing had occurred, the same could be
identified through digital foot printer using internet tools and
therefore, there is no necessity to subject the petitioner to
custodial interrogation. As rightly contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, it is unlikely that the petitioner would
tamper with the evidence, as it is already available. The offence
alleged is not punishable with death or life imprisonment.
8. In that view of the matter, this petition is allowed.
The petitioner is granted anticipatory bail and the respondent is
directed to enlarge him on bail in the event of his arrest in
Crime No.286/2025, subject to the following conditions:
NC: 2026:KHC:19761
HC-KAR
(i) The Petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer within 15 days from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order and
shall execute a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the likesum
to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.
(ii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution
witness and he shall co-operate with the
police for investigation and appear before
them whenever called upon.
(iv) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial
Court, without prior permission;
(v) Petitioner shall regularly appear before the
Trial Court without fail unless exempted by
the Trial Court for valid reasons.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
HJ
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2
