(BY MS. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL. SPP;

SRI. ANGAD KAMATH, MS. SLOKA B., SRI. SUYOG SATHYA, ADVOCATES FOR DEFACTO COMPLAINANT) -2- NC: 2025:KHC:11059 CRL.P No. 695 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 698 of 2025 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.

IN CRL.P NO. 698/2025 BETWEEN:

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

2. Brief facts of the case are:

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 -6- NC: 2025:KHC:11059 CRL.P No. 695 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 698 of 2025 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:

NC: 2025:KHC:11059 CRL.P No. 695 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 698 of 2025 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:-

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:

8. In support of her contentions, the learned Addl. SPP has cited the following decisions:

complainant has also vehemently opposed for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners and has filed statement of objections. His contentions are reiterated as under:

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.

NC: 2025:KHC:11059 CRL.P No. 695 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 698 of 2025 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

NC: 2025:KHC:11059 CRL.P No. 695 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 698 of 2025 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

NC: 2025:KHC:11059 CRL.P No. 695 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 698 of 2025 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

NC: 2025:KHC:11059 CRL.P No. 695 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 698 of 2025 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

NC: 2025:KHC:11059 CRL.P No. 695 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 698 of 2025 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:

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:

NC: 2025:KHC:11059 CRL.P No. 695 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 698 of 2025 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)

NC: 2025:KHC:11059 CRL.P No. 695 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 698 of 2025 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:

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.

NC: 2025:KHC:11059 CRL.P No. 695 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 698 of 2025

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

NC: 2025:KHC:11059 CRL.P No. 695 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 698 of 2025 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

NC: 2025:KHC:11059 CRL.P No. 695 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 698 of 2025 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.

(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2 Ct:ar