[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mr. Mahipal Singh Bochalyo vs State Of Karnataka on 20 February, 2026
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:10492
CRL.P No. 17028 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 17028 OF 2025 (438(Cr.PC) /
482(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. MR. MAHIPAL SINGH BOCHALYO
S/O SAGARMAL VIKRAM SINGH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
No.2614, 27TH MAIN, HSR LAYOUT
BENGALURU CITY-560 102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAKSHITH R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
INSPECTOR OF POLICE
HSR LAYOUT POLICE STATION HSR LAYOUT
Digitally signed by BENGALURU-560102.
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI REPRESENTED BY
Location: HIGH
COURT OF STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY POLICE
INSPECTOR, CEN CRIME POLICE STATION
SOUTH EAST DIVISION
BANGALORE CITY-560 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M M, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:10492
CRL.P No. 17028 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 Cr.P.C. (FILED
UNDER SECTION 482 BNSS) PRAYING TO GRANT
ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER IN THE
EVENT OF ARREST IN CR.No.384/2025 FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 66C, 66D, 84B OF THE I.T ACT
AND SECTION 318(4),319,61(2) R/W 3(5) OF BNS 2023 ON
THE COURT OF THE 39TH A.C.J.M AT BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition is filed by accused No. 19 under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Praying to grant anticipatory bail in
crime No. 384/2025 of HSR Layout Police Station
registered for offence under Sections 66-C, 66-D, 84-B of
Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 318(4),
319, 111(2), 114(2), 61(2) read with Section 3(5) of BNS.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and
learned HCGP for respondent - State.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend
that petitioner and accused No. 18 started the Company.
Subsequently, accused No. 18 resigned from the
directorship and accused No. 20 joined as the Director.
NC: 2026:KHC:10492
HC-KAR
After accused No. 20 joined as the Director, he purchased
shares of this petitioner and also of accused No. 18 and
now accused No. 20 is having 80% of the shares and the
petitioner is having 20% of shares. As major shares are
with accused No. 20, he will be incharge of affairs of the
Company. Accused No. 20 who has been added as Director
of the Company has been granted anticipatory bail by this
Court. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner.
The offence alleged against the petitioner is provided with
punishment of imprisonment which may extend to 7 years.
The victims are not traced. There is no money transfer.
Bank account of accused No. 18 has been secured.
Statement of C.W.28 and another has already been
recorded. Accused No. 2 has recruited the employees and
accused No. 2 is stated to be Office Boy. Rental agreement
has been signed by accused No. 20 and that itself
indicates that he is incharge of the business of the
Company. There is no abnormal transfer. Petitioner is
ready to cooperate with the Investigating Officer in the
NC: 2026:KHC:10492
HC-KAR
enquiry and abide by any conditions to be imposed by this
Court. With this he prayed to allow the petition.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that
the petitioner is one among the two Directors. Petitioner
was the Director as on the date of alleged offence.
Petitioner and other accused created fake KYC at the time
of opening the Company. Huge amount is involved and
victims are in the US and Canada and they have to be
identified. Laptop etc., have been seized and sent to FSL.
Insptie of notice petitioner has not appeared before the
Investigating Officer for investigation. Petitioner is a
resident of Rajasthan and Police went to Rajasthan, but,
petitioner could not be secured. Petitioner and other
accused have used many bank accounts and they have
opened lot of call centers, details of which are required to
investigated. Rent amount has been paid by using
different accounts. I-cloud details have to be obtained
from the petitioner as he is one of the Directors.
NC: 2026:KHC:10492
HC-KAR
Therefore, petitioner is required for custodial interrogation.
With this she prayed to reject the petition.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties,
this Court has perused the chargesheet and other
materials placed on record.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that
accused No. 20 who is one of the Directors has been
granted anticipatory bail by this Court by order dated
17.12.2025 passed in Crl.P. No. 15649/2025 and
connected matters and therefore, petitioner is also entitled
for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. At
the time of considering the anticipatory bail petition of
accused No. 20, neither learned counsel for petitioner nor
the Additional SPP had brought to the notice of this Court
that accused No. 20 was the Director of the Company.
Suppressing the fact that accused No.20 was the Director
of the Company said petition had been filed. Said petition
was considered only on the ground that accused No. 20
was doing catering business and he was supplying food to
NC: 2026:KHC:10492
HC-KAR
the accused persons at their office and residence. As the
said petition was filed and considered suppressing the fact
that accused No. 20 was the Director of the Company,
State is at liberty to seek cancellation of anticipatory bail
granted to accused No. 20. Therefore, petitioner is not
entitled for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground of
parity.
7. This Court in the order dated 17.12.2025
passed in Crl.P. No. 15649/2025 and connected matters
has observed as under:
"10. On the complaint of PSI, HSR Layout
Police Station dated 07.10.2025, case came to
be registered in Crime No.384/2025 for offences
punishable under Sections 66(C), 66(D), 84(B)
of Information Technology Act, 2000 and
Sections 61(2), 318(4), 319, read with Section
3(5) of BNS against Cybits Solution Private
Limited and others. During investigation some of
the accused persons have been arrested. During
investigation, requisition has been filed to insert
Sections 111(2) and 111(4) of BNS.
NC: 2026:KHC:10492
HC-KAR
11. After investigation, charge sheet has
been filed against accused Nos. 1 to 34 for
offences punishable under Sections 66(C),
66(D), 84(B) of Information Technology Act,
2000 and Sections 61(2), 318(4), 319, read with
Section 3(5) of BNS. The charge sheet has not
been filed for offences punishable under Sections
111(2) and 111(4) of BNS, as accused persons
are not involved in more than one crimes during
last 10 years. Accused No.2 is working as Office
Boy maintaining attendance records of
employees of accused No.1 -Company. Accused
No.4 is working as Closure. Accused Nos.3, 5, 6
to 17 are working as Dialers/Closures in accused
No.1 -Company. Accused Nos.2 to 17 are the
employees of accused No.1 -Company. The
allegation against accused No.1 -Company and
it's employees i.e., accused Nos.2 to 17 is that
they are making calls to the citizens of US and
Canada stating that they are the US Customs
and Border Protection Force, Drug Enforcement
and Administration and Department of Homeland
Security and used to get the details of the said
victims, their passport, bank accounts, driving
license and threatening them stating that they
NC: 2026:KHC:10492
HC-KAR
are involved in commission of offence and
getting money transferred from them to different
accounts and keeping them in digital arrest and
in order to get money from them asking them to
purchase gift card of Walmart, Target,
Walgreens, CVS, Dollar General, HEB Store and
sending Bitcoin QR Code and asking them to
transfer money. Accused persons were acting as
Investigating Officers of United States and
creating arrest warrant of United State Supreme
Court and United State District Court. Employees
of accused No.1 -Company used to make calls to
citizens of US and Canada in that regard."
8. Petitioner is one of the Directors since the
registration of the Company and till today he is continuing
as the Director of the Company. The Company has
recruited several employees and they have been trained
and used for commission of the offence. Merely because
petitioner is stated to have 20% of the shares in the
Company is not a ground to say that he is not actively
involved in the business of the Company. Even though
chargesheet is filed, investigation is in progress.
NC: 2026:KHC:10492
HC-KAR
Investigating agency has to ascertain the role of other
accused persons including the petitioner and identify the
victims. As the laptop, computer systems have seen seized
and sent for FSL and I-cloud details are required to be
obtained from the accused persons, petitioner is required
for custodial interrogation.
9. Considering the above aspects petitioner has
not made out any grounds for grant of anticipatory bail.
In the result, petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
LRS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31
Ct.sm
