Karnataka High Court
Prashanth Babu D M vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:28777
CRL.P No. 6403 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6403 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
PRASHANTH BABU D.M.
S/O MANJUNATH D.K.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/A NO.021, SHARAVATHI BLOCK
NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGE
KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU - 560 095
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: TEJAS N. FOR
Digitally
signed by SRI: SHREYAS B.S., ADVOCATE)
NANDINI B G
Location:
high court of
karnataka AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY COTTONPET P.S.
REP BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: PRASANNA KUMAR P, SPL.P.P.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF
CR.P.C. (FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF BNSS) PRAYING TO
ENLARGE HIM ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THE
ARREST IN CR.NO.302/2023 (ANNEXURE-B) BY THE COTTONPET
POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
204, 120B, 409, 426 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL.
C.M.M., BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 12.07.2024 COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:28777
CRL.P No. 6403 of 2024
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA)
The petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking grant
of anticipatory bail in Crime No.302 of 2023 of Cottonpet Police
Station, pending on the file of the learned IV Additional CMM,
Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 204, 120-B, 409 and 426 of Indian Penal Code (for
short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the
informant K Ravishankar.
2. Heard Sri N Tejas, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri P Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for
the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the
petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of
anticipatory bail on the apprehension of being arrested. He
submitted that initially, Crime No.91 of 2020 of K G Nagar
Police Station, Crime No.45 of 2020 of Cyber Crime Police
Station, Crime No.153 of 2020 of Cottonpet Police Station and
Crime No.287 of 2020 of Ashok Nagar Police Station, were
came to be registered against the accused SriKrishna @ Sriki
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:28777
CRL.P No. 6403 of 2024
and others. These four criminal cases were investigated by
three different Investigating Officers. Later, a Special
Investigating Team (for short 'SIT') was constituted to
investigate into the criminal cases. It is thereafter, Crime
No.302 of 2023 came to be registered alleging that multiple
mirror image files were created from the devices seized in the
above cases.
4. It is contended that the petitioner is the Police
Inspector in-charge of Technical Support Centre. A search was
held in the house of the petitioner in connection with Crime
No.302 of 2023, but nothing incriminating was found. On
18.01.2024, the petitioner had filed a complaint with SIT
against one B S Gagan Jain and Santhosh Kumar, who were
the private technical experts. Immediately, thereafter Crime
No.1 of 2024 came to be registered on 24.01.2024 arraigning
the petitioner as one of the accused and on the same day, he
was apprehended. He was taken to police custody for seven
days and his voluntary statement, which runs into several
pages, was recorded.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:28777
CRL.P No. 6403 of 2024
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
recently on 28.06.2024, a notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C.,
came to be issued by the Investigating Officer to the petitioner
asking to appear before him. The petitioner suspects foul play
on the part of the Investigating Officer, who is bent upon to
apprehend the petitioner on one pretext or the other.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo
along with a copy of the letter dated 25.11.2021 issued by the
then Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City to highlight that
the Commissioner of Police has published a press note by
specifically stating that some distorted reports are appearing in
media about the investigation into bit coin case and as a
clarification press notes dated 13.11.2021 and further on
18.11.2021 were issued. Therefore, learned counsel for the
petitioner contended that when the highest officer over seeing
the investigation gave clean chit to the Investigating Officers
and other police officers concerned, the contention of the
prosecution against the petitioner cannot be accepted.
7. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was
only assisting the Investigating Officers in the above said four
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:28777
CRL.P No. 6403 of 2024
crime numbers. Since there is apprehension to the petitioner
of being arrested, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail as his
custodial interrogation is not at all necessary, since he was
already apprehended, subjected to police custody and even his
voluntary statement is already recorded. Therefore, he prays
for allowing the petition.
8. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor
opposing the petition submitted that Crime No.91 of 2020 of K
G Nagar Police Station came to be registered against the
accused therein under the provisions of NDPS Act. The accused
were apprehended in the said case. They have revealed in
their voluntary statements that they used to procure narcotic
drugs by booking the same through dark web and have paid
money by way of crypto currency (bit coins) through accused
No.10 - SriKrishna @ Sriki. Later, accused No.10 was also
apprehended and his MacBook (laptop) was seized under the
mahazar on 17.11.2020. In the meantime, one more MacBook
was seized from the house of accused No.10 on 19.11.2020
and the Investigating Officers in the said case sought
permission to obtain mirror images of the contents of the said
MacBooks. It is stated that two MacBooks in the sealed
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:28777
CRL.P No. 6403 of 2024
condition were handed over to the petitioner herein by the
Investigating Officer as the petitioner was working as the head
of in the Technical Support Centre of CCB.
9. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that even
though the final report was filed in Crime No.91 of 2020 against
the accused in the said case, the FSL report with regard to
MacBook was awaited. Looking to the magnitude and
seriousness of the offence, the Government constituted a
Special Investigation Team, headed by the Additional Director
General of Police, during May 2023. It is stated that during
July 2023, the FSL report with regard to seized Apple MacBook
was received by SIT, according to which, the MacBook, hard
disk and pen drive seized in Crime No.91 of 2020 were found to
have been operated between 17.11.2020 to 21.11.2020 during
which period, the gadgets were supposed to be in sealed cover.
Several files appears to have been created during the said
period which indicate that there was illegal access to the
gadgets.
10. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that
since the FSL report indicated illegal access to the gadgets
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:28777
CRL.P No. 6403 of 2024
which were supposed to be in a sealed condition, the FIR in
Crime No.302 of 2023 of Cottonpet Police Station came to be
registered and the investigation was made over to SIT, CID by
the Government.
11. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further submits
that Cyber Forensic Analysis Report was obtained from Centre
for Development of Advance Computing (for short 'C-DAC') on
21.05.2024 which analysed the gadgets seized in the matter
and the report indicates that the contents of Apple MacBook
were transferred into the personal desktop of the petitioner,
which was in his chamber in the Technical Centre. The C-DAC
report also reveal that after copying the contents from the two
MacBooks, the petitioner in active connivance with the other
accused got installed crypto hardware wallet, electrum wallet
applications and data wiping applications. The report also
indicates crypto currency relating data. Therefore, from the C-
DAC report, it is clear that the petitioner on coming to know
about registration of Crime No.302 of 2023, has wiped off all
the contents in his personal desktop for obvious reasons.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:28777
CRL.P No. 6403 of 2024
12. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted
that the statement of one B S Gagan Jain was recorded under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 30.03.2024, which indicates that the
above gadgets contained about 4000 bit coins at the time of
transfer of the contents to the personal desktop of the
petitioner. He further submitted that the price of one bit coin
during November, 2020 was about $29,000 i.e., approximately
Rs.21.20 lakhs. Thus, it is stated that the total value of bit
coins handled by the petitioner was about Rs.850 crores.
13. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that
since C-DAC report categorically indicates wiping off the
contents from the personal desktop of the petitioner, which
contained all the above data and crypto wallet, his custodial
interrogation is very much necessary to unearth one of the
largest crime in relation to crypto currency, that too, involving
the petitioner who is a Police Inspector working in the Technical
Support Centre.
14. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that a
detailed statement of objections filed in the matter discloses
the nature and seriousness of offences which disentitle the
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:28777
CRL.P No. 6403 of 2024
petitioner from seeking anticipatory bail. He placed reliance on
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in The State of
Jharkhand Vs Sandeep Kumar1 to contend that when serious
allegations are made against the Senior Police Officer who is
alleged to have manipulated the investigation, he is not entitled
for grant of anticipatory bail. Even though none of the offences
alleged is punishable with imprisonment for life, the standard
that could be applied to an accused generally cannot be made
applicable to the petitioner since he is a Police Officer charged
with meddling with the digital documents seized in the matter
by abusing his position as a Police Inspector.
15. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that
even though a press report is said to have been issued by the
Office of the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City, it was at
the instance of the Investigating Officers in 4 criminal cases
referred to above who are arrayed as accused in the present
case. Therefore, no much importance could be attached to the
press note. On the other hand, the copy of case dairy
produced before the Court for perusal discloses that the
1
SLP (Crl.)No.10499/2023 DD 6.3.2024
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:28777
CRL.P No. 6403 of 2024
petitioner has used the lenovo laptop which is his personal
device, for downloading the data from the seized gadgets.
16. Learned Special Public Prosecutor referring to the
letter dated 25.11.2021 issued by the then Commissioner of
Police, Bengaluru City produced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner contended that the said letter was procured by the
petitioner from the office of the Police Commissioner of which
he is not the custodian. Moreover, as per the said letter,
mahazar of mirror imaging (data extraction procedure) of
electronic gadgets recovered from the accused persons in the
earlier criminal cases has specifically stated to have been
conducted in CCB Technical Support Centre, Adugodi, of which
the petitioner is the Head. Therefore, the said letter which was
issued at the instance of other Investigating Officers cannot
enure to the benefit of the petitioner.
17. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that
even though the petitioner was earlier apprehended and
released on bail in Crime No.1 of 2024 of Cyber Crime Police
Station, in view of further developments referred to above, the
petitioner's custodial interrogation is very much necessary in
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:28777
CRL.P No. 6403 of 2024
the present case and hence, he is not entitled for grant of
anticipatory bail. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the
petition.
18. In view of the rival contentions urged by the
learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise
for my consideration is:
"Whether the petitioner is entitled
for grant of bail under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C.?"
My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the
following:
REASONS
19. The facts of the case as submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner regarding registration of 4 different
criminal cases, apprehension of accused No.10 Srikrishna @
Sriki and others by the Investigating Officers in the said case,
seizure of electronic gadgets from them are not in dispute.
Admittedly, the Special Investigating Team was formed to
investigate into Crime No.91 of 2020 and other three criminal
cases referred to above. However, the head of SIT lodged the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:28777
CRL.P No. 6403 of 2024
first information alleging commission of offence under Sections
204, 120-B, 409 and 426 of IPC against the erstwhile
Investigating Officers in Crime No.91 of 2020 of K G Nagar
Police Station, other police officers and other persons. The FIR
in Crime No.302 of 2023 of Cottonpet Police Station came to be
registered on 09.08.2023. On 18.01.2024, the petitioner being
the Police Inspector heading the Technical Support Centre, CID
filed a complaint with the Investigating Officer SIT, CID alleging
criminal breach of trust and cheating against one B S Gagan
Jain of Cyber Safe Company and Santhosh Kumar of GCID
Company who are said to be the private cyber experts and
whose assistance was taken by the petitioner in analysing the
digital records.
20. It is stated that the petitioner is having several
years of experience in handling digital devices and technical
evidence, but however, he alleges ignorance of technical
knowhow even though he was the Head of the digital support
centre and stated that he was entirely depending upon the
private cyber experts referred to above and alleges criminal
breach of trust and cheating against them. The complaint filed
by the petitioner runs into 7 pages with several details.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:28777
CRL.P No. 6403 of 2024
However, even the petitioner suspects that there is tampering
of the electronic devices.
21. Admittedly, the petitioner is not subjected to
interrogation in the present case even though he was
apprehended, taken to police custody and interrogated in Crime
No.1 of 2024. It is not in dispute that the seized electronic
gadgets in Crime No.91 of 2020 was handed over to the
petitioner in a sealed condition. It is the contention of the
prosecution that the said gadgets were tampered with and
mirror images were created and the data was transferred to the
personal desktop and laptop of the petitioner without the
permission of the Court. It is also stated that the data found in
his personal desktop was wiped off after registration of the
present case. The FSL report which prima facie probablises
illegal access to the gadgets, even when they are supposed to
be in a sealed condition and the C-DAC report also prima facie
discloses that the contents of Apple MacBook were transferred
to the desktop in the chamber of the petitioner in Technical
Support Centre, which is said to be his personal desktop, which
assumes importance. Coupled with the same, the statement of
B S Gagan Jain, who is also referred by the petitioner in his
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:28777
CRL.P No. 6403 of 2024
complaint dated 18.01.2024, was recorded under Section 164
of Cr.P.C. which suggests that the seized gadgets contained
4000 bit coins and the same was transferred to the personal
desktop of the petitioner and the same requires consideration.
Such serious revelation in the statement made under Section
164 Cr.P.C cannot be brushed aside or ignored lightly.
Moreover, the FSL report dated 20.02.2023 refers to one
lenovo desktop which according to the respondent is the
personal desktop of the petitioner. The C-DAC report relied on
by the prosecution supports its contention regarding mirror
imaging the data found in Apple MacBooks on different dates
and time. It also suggests access to the gadgets on various
dates, downloading of various softwares, including the software
for decoding.
22. It is pertinent to note that as per C-DAC report, a
text file is located in the Wallet details folder containing BTC
address in the name of the petitioner. Similarly, an application
data with the user name of the petitioner is also noticed. The
data wiping tool was also found to have been installed which
was being used for deletion of files and folders from the
computer. It is stated that the wiping technique prevents the
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:28777
CRL.P No. 6403 of 2024
forensic tools from recovering the deleted contents by the
mechanism of overwriting the data with the junk. The
application data was said to be located under the user name of
the petitioner. The report refers to as many as 16 files in the
category of deleted directory the source of which finds the user
name as that of the petitioner. When such prima facie
materials are available to suggest meddling with the electronic
devices seized in the matter, the petitioner being the Head of
the Technical Support Centre to whom the gadgets in sealed
condition were entrusted, is liable to give reasonable
explanation, but the petitioner is maintaining his stand that
even though he is the head of the Technical Support Centre is
not aware of handling of crypto currency investigation, black
chain technology or about various software applications, and
had blindly relied on private cyber experts, which is hard to
believe at this stage.
23. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the
copy of press note dated 13.11.2021 and the letter dated
25.11.2021 issued by the then Commissioner of Police,
Bengaluru City to contend that a clean chit is given to the
Investigating Officers and other officers who have assisted the
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:28777
CRL.P No. 6403 of 2024
Investigating Officers regarding the investigation undertaken.
It is the specific contention of the learned Special Public
Prosecutor that the same was issued at the instance of the
Investigating Officers in the earlier criminal cases which is quite
possible as otherwise there was no occasion for the
Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City to give such
explanation. Moreover, in the letter dated 25.11.2021, it is
stated that except in Crime No.91 of 2020 of K G Nagar Police
Station, the other three cases have been charge sheeted after
systematic and impartial investigation. It is specifically stated
in the letter that in Crime No.91 of 2020, the FSL report is not
yet received and on receipt of the same, the charge sheet
would be filed. Therefore, it is clear that the press note and
the letter in question were much before the receipt of FSL
report and C-DAC report now relied on by the respondent to
substantiate its contentions. In view of the opinion expressed
in FSL report and C-DAC report, it can be concluded that there
are prima facie materials against the petitioner.
24. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on
record the order dated 27.06.2024 passed in Criminal Petition
No.5267 of 2024 to contend that one of the accused in the case
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:28777
CRL.P No. 6403 of 2024
was granted anticipatory bail and therefore, on parity, the
petitioner is also entitled for said relief. But the fact remains
that the materials that are placed before the Court against the
said accused No.5 and the contention raised by the prosecution
against the present accused are entirely different. The
prosecution had not placed reliance either on FSL report or the
C-DAC report which is produced in the present case, when the
claim of the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.5267 of 2024 was
being considered. Under such circumstances, the allegation
against the present petitioner appears to be entirely different
and the same is prima facie supported by materials. Hence, he
is not entitled for benefit of parity as that of the co-accused.
25. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that
the petitioner is required for interrogation by the respondent
with reference to the findings in FSL report and C-DAC report
and hence, he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, I answer the above point in Negative and proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
The Criminal Petition is dismissed.
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:28777 CRL.P No. 6403 of 2024 The copy of case dairy furnished by the respondent which is supposed to be confidential, is ordered to be returned to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, forthwith.
Sd/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE *bgn/-
CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1