Karnataka High Court
Shridhar K Pujar vs State By on 23 April, 2024
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2535/2024
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2146/2024
IN CRL.P.NO.2535/2024:
BETWEEN:
SRI. CHANDRADHARA S.R.,
S/O. RAJASHEKAR .T,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
POLICE INSPECTOR,
A.P.T.S. YELAHANKA,
R/AT: NO.01, LAA CAPITAL APARTMENT,
RICHES GARDEN, KALKERE,
BENGALURU-560 043.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHYAM SUNDER, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. TEJAS .N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY:
CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE-560 001.
(REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HCK, BENGALURU-01)
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. JAGADEESHA .B.N., SPP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST IN CR.NO.01/2024 REGISTERED BY CYBER CRIME
P.S., CID, FOR OFFENCES P/U/SS. 343, 344, 409, 426, 36, 37,
201, 204 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 66 AND 84(c) OF I.T.
ACT ON THE FILE OF I ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
-2-
IN CRL.P.NO.2146/2024:
BETWEEN:
SHRIDHAR K. PUJAR,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O. KESARINANDAN,
DY.S.P., INTERNAL SECURITY DIVISION,
NO.60, RICHMOND ROAD,
VICTORIA LAYOUT, BENGLAURU,
KARNATAKA-560 007.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KIRAN .S. JAWALI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SHASHWATH .S PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
STATE BY CYBER CRIME PS, CID,
PALACE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILIDING,
BENGLAURU-560 001.
2. K. RAVISHANKAR,
S/O S.M. KRISHNAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CT & R DIVISION & IO SIT,
CID PALACE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAGADEESHA .B.N., SPP FOR R1;
R2 -SERVED)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST IN CR.NO.01/2024 FOR OFFENCES P/U/Ss. 343, 344,
409, 426, 34, 36, 37, 201, 204 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 66 AND
84(C) OF I.T. ACT REGISTERED BY CYBER CRIME P.S., CID ON
THE FILE OF I ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
-3-
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 08.04.2024, COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER' THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These petitions are filed by petitioner/accused Nos.3 & 5 for enlarging them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.1/2024 registered by cyber crime Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 343, 344, 409, 426, 34, 36, 37, 201 and 204 of IPC and Sections 66 and 84C of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
2. The Criminal Petition No.2535/2024 is filed by Accused No.3, while Criminal Petition No.2146/2024 is filed by Accused No.5 in Crime No.1/2024 of Cyber Crime Police Station at Bengaluru, for the above noted offences.
3. On the basis of complaint lodged by Sri. K. Ravishankar, who was the Investigating Officer in Cr.No.153/2020 of Cottonpet Police Station and Cr.No.91/2020 of K.G. Nagar Police Station, the present case in Cr.No.1/2024 was registered.
-4-
4. The allegations of the prosecution disclose that, the petitioners being Investigating Officers along with other accused colluded in order to have unlawful gain and have also caused destruction of evidence in order to screen themselves from legal consequences. It is alleged that they have hatched criminal conspiracy and thereby keeping the accused by name Sriki and Robin Khandelwal in illegal police custody pertaining to investigation of various crimes undertaken by them, provided them all the liberty with laptop in order to facilitate hacking, exchanges in order to have benefit in bit coins. It is further alleged that petitioners were also instrumental in providing the contraband-Xanz to accused, who were in police custody without medical supervisation and petitioner/Accused No.3 in Crl.P.2146/2024 has facilitated the accused-Sriki to send mail to his friend, which clearly disclose in what way this petitioner has provided all the facilities to the accused, who were in the custody of police, including laptop, free wifi etc. This conduct on the part of the petitioners/accused Nos. 3 & 5 is in order to hack crypto exchanges in order to have wrongful gain. It is alleged -5- that petitioners took possession of one plus mobile phone of accused Robin Khandelwal and provided it to accused No.1 and they took control of various sites, changed passwords of crypto wallets, gmail cloud and accessed to them as well as used them without the approval of the Court. In the said process, it is alleged that they facilitated accused No.1 to transfer bit coins worth of Rs.98,280/- from Wazir Exchange Crypto Wallet of Robin Khandelwal to UNOCOIN wallet of accused No.1. It is also alleged that though this mobile was seized, it went untraced till 17.07.2023 and it was retained with the company of accused No.1.
5. It is also alleged that the crypto wallet containing 31 bit coins worth of Rs.9 crores were seized under mahazar on 08.01.2021. But later on, another mahazar was drawn on 22.01.2021, making a simple assertion that he was only a mirage image and nothing was seized. It is also alleged that the petitioners have also having custody of Robin Khandelwal and had facilitated accused No.1 to transfer Rs.2,53,160/- from Paytm -6- account of Robin Khandelwala on 16.01.2021 and bit coin worth of same amount was purchased from Wazir exchange. It is further alleged that though the accused were investigating the crime pertaining to hacking and NDPS Act, but the way they dealt the matter, it is evident that they had recovered bit coins and the way of investigation was entirely different which is evident from conversation recorded in group of the evidence.
6. It is also alleged that the petitioner/accused No.3 in Crl.P.No.2146/2024 is declared as proclaimed offender and the other petitioner has abused his position by misappropriating 31 bit coins by creating a false mahazar subsequently. It is further asserted that the petitioner has taken the assistance of a private person/accused No.1 and the Mahazar ought to have been drawn by petitioner being the Investigating Officer, but he allowed the Mahazar to be drawn by accused No.1, which discloses his involvement in crime. Hence, both the petitioners were prosecuted in this regard and on the basis of this complaint, the FIR came to be issued. The -7- petitioners apprehending their arrest, have approached the learned Sessions Judge and their bail petition came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court seeking anticipatory bail.
7. The main contention of learned Senior Counsels Sri. Shyam Sunder and Sri. Kiran .S. Jawali, appearing for the petitioners regarding illegal custody that the matter has already reached finality since the Division Bench of this Court has already held that the allegations of illegal custody is false and no such complaint is made by the victims themselves. It is further asserted that though the allegations were regarding misappropriation of 31 bit coins, the subsequent mahazar discloses that it was a live exchange which cannot be transferred and hence question of misappropriation does not arise at all. It is alleged that petitioners never investigated regarding bit coins and their investigation was in respect of only hacking and the offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act' for short). It is contended that though victims did not file any complaint, -8- but subsequently Investigating Officer has initiated the action and the petitioners being public servants for having discharged their duties have been made as a scapegoats. Hence, the petitioners have sought for admitting them on bail.
8. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor would seriously oppose the bail petition. He would contend that though regarding illegal custody there is a finding by the Division Bench, but the said order was obtained by misleading the Court. He would contend that email sent by Sriki to his friend discloses that though he was in custody, he was given free access and he would contend that though the date was wrongly typed, but the records disclose that it was in the period of police custody which clearly establish that wrong mentioning of the date in the complaint itself is not a ground for discarding the evidence of prosecution. He would also contend that the Mahazar dated 08.01.2021 disclose regarding recovery of 31 bit coins, but the subsequent mahazar dated 22.01.2021 disclose that it is only live exchange and when -9- compared these screen shots it is evident that they are not one and the same, but they are different. It is further alleged that the records disclose that the petitioners have not investigated pertaining to the allegations in the crime but they investigated regarding the bit coins and siphoned the bit coins worth of Rs.9 crores. It is further asserted that though there is a specific cyber/technical wing in CID, petitioner preferred to go for a private expert/accused No.1 and allowed him to draw a mahazar, which is not permissible and mahazar of recovery of bit coins was subsequently given a go-by in the second mahazar, since the mahazars were drawn by accused No.1, though Investigating officer was petitioner in Crl.P.No.2535/2024.
9. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would also contend that nano ledgers were secured and no explanation is forthcoming regarding securing nano ledgers and all these aspects are required to be interrogated and destructed data needs to be recovered. It is further asserted that private laptop was also used to
- 10 -
have access and hacking all the data, and they were not surrendered by co-operating with the investigation and at a belated stage, it is surrendered and it revealed that certain data is erased, which needs to be recovered. He would also contend that it is not a case of fabrication, but it is case of siphoning of the bit coins under the guise of investigation, by using private experts by hacking the poker sites. He would also contend that the petitioner in Crl.P.No.2146/2024 is a proclaimed offender and hence, question of he seeking anticipatory bail does not arise at all. Hence, he would seek for rejection of both the bail petitions as custodial interrogation of petitioners is essential.
10. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is evident that the petitioners were investigating officers in different crimes bearing Cr.No.153/2020 of Cottonpet police station and Cr.No.91/2020 of K.G. Nagar Police Station.
11. The records disclose that the petitioner/accused No.3 in Crl.P.No.2535/2024 was also an investigating
- 11 -
officer in Cr.No.45/2020 and they have arrested accused/Sri Krishna alias Sriki and Robin Khandelwal and taken them to police custody during the course of investigation. No doubt Cr.No.45/2020 was registered at the instance of petitioner/Chandradhar/Accused No.3, but he himself was the investigating officer in the said crime also. The records disclose that during the course of investigation, the petitioner/ Chandradhar has recovered 31 bit coins worth Rs.9 crores and same is recorded under a mahazar. However, a subsequent mahazar was drawn wherein it is shown as if it is only live exchange and there was no recovery. Admittedly, both these mahazars were got done by petitioner/Accused No.3-Chandradhar through accused No.1, who is a private expert running a firm i.e., GCID Technologies Pvt Ltd., being a CEO. It is for the petitioners to explain as to why he has secured the services of the private expert when there is a technical cyber team in CID wing itself. Though it is asserted that as per the oral directions of the higher officers they have approached the private firm, it is not supported by any material evidence.
- 12 -
12. Though the allegations disclose that 31 bit coins of worth Rs.9 crores were said to have been recovered under a Mahazar, but subsequently while drawing second mahazar it was shown to be a live exchange and question of recovery does not arise at all. But when password and ID were changed to have access, question of subsequent transfer in this regard by way of live exchange does not arise at all. There is no proper explanation regarding missing of 31 bit coins and interestingly, both the mahazars dated 08.01.2021 and 22.01.2021 were drawn by accused No.1, who is a CEO of M/s. GCID Technologies Pvt Ltd and they were not drawn by the petitioner Chandradhar who himself is an Investigating Officer. He was required to investigate regarding hacking, but the records disclose that they are said to have recovered 31 bit coins, but no further investigation was done in this regard. The allegations now made regarding accused No.1 is that, he manipulated the bit coins core/port application by misleading the investigation. But, nothing was prevented the petitioner
- 13 -
from availing services of cyber wing of CID and he did not explain the same. Further, he did not draw mahazar on his own, but he allowed accused No.1 to draw the mahazar and he simply signs as if it was done in his presence. This conduct on the part of the petitioner clearly disclose that the entire transaction was allowed to be done by accused No.1 by this petitioner and he is required to explain all these aspects.
13. The records further disclose that accused No.1 being the CEO of GCID Technologies Pvt Ltd committed illegal activities of hacking, transferring the bit coins, change of pass word etc., with the active assistance of Sri Krishna alias Sriki and Robin Khandelwal, and with the assistance of accused No.1 they had access to crypto wallet belonging to Robin Khandelwal while he was in police custody and transferred the bit coins of worth Rs.1,83,624/- to the wallet of accused No.1 which was allowed.
14. The records further disclose that though Cr.No.45/2020 was in respect of data theft by poker Sites,
- 14 -
there was an attempt to transfer bit coins by keeping Sri Krishna in GCID office during his custody period. The records also disclose that Sri Krishna was provided with MSIL Laptop and there was an attempt to transfer the bit coins and hack the other websites. Though the recovery of 31 bit coins by transferring to police wallet was shown in the mahazar dated 08.01.2021, subsequently, by mahazar dated 22.01.2021 it was shown as a false transaction. Apart from that, during the period of police custody of Robin Khandelwal from 06.01.2021 to 19.02.2021 a sum of Rs.99,000/- was transferred from Paytm account of Robin Khandelwal and the bit coins were purchased from wazir exchange. Again on 16.01.2021 Rs.2,53,160/- was transferred from paytm account of Robin Khandelwal and bit coins were purchased from Wazir and in this period Robin Khandelwal was in police custody of the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to explain these anomalies.
15. Apart from that, as per the circular issued by Government of Karnataka dated 17.03.2017 bearing No.HD 17 CWP2017, there was a direction to all the
- 15 -
Investigating officers as per the order of this Court in Crl.P.No.100822/2016 in respect of investigation of any documents, same shall be referred to State Forensic Laboratory and not a private laboratory. In the instant case, the records disclose that the services of accused No.1 were taken, though there is a separate cyber wing in the CID office. But the petitioners preferred the services of accused No.1 who was the CEO of GCID Technologies Pvt Ltd. Even the petitioner had gone to the extent of allowing accused No.1 to draw the mahazar instead of drawing mahazar by himself.
16. As regards the other petitioner/accused No.5- Shridhar K Pujar, it is evident that though accused Sriki alias Sri Krishna was in his custody, he was provided with laptop and free internet. As a result, he sent email to his friend. When accused/Sriki was in custody, question of he sending email to his friend does not arise at all without assistance of Investigating Officer. Further, screen shots of recovery of bit coins pertaining to mahazars dated 08.01.2021 and 22.01.2021 do not tally with each other.
- 16 -
The whatsapp messages disclose that the group was created pertaining to seizure of bit coins and the message was clear there. Even statement of Robin Khandelwal under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. discloses that as to how the mischief was played by the Investigating Officers. The whatsapp messages also disclose regarding recovery of the bit coins but now a different case has been put forward as if no bit coins were recovered. Even email discloses that though the accused-Sri Krishna was in police custody, he was capable of sending email to his friend disclosing about his comfortness and providing him all the facilities. This act clearly disclose that the petitioners instead of investigating the crime have used accused-Robin Khandelwal and accused-Sri Krishna alias Sriki to have unlawful gain for transfer of bit coins and subsequently, they were found to be missing. The conduct of the petitioners clearly discloses that they played with the accused for recovery of bit coins and material evidence, but subsequently they destroyed the evidence.
- 17 -
17. As regards petitioner/accused No.5- Shridhar K. Pujar, he was already declared as proclaimed offender by the concerned Court on a request made by the concerned Investigating Officer. When the petitioner was already declared as proclaimed offender, question of he seeking anticipatory bail does not arise at all. Apart from that it is further alleged that another case of attempt is also booked against him in the Vidhana Soudha Police Station when there was an attempt to serve notice on him. The petitioners are Police Officers holding High Posts and possibility of they tampering the evidence cannot be ruled-out as there is already allegations of tampering the material evidence.
18. The learned Senior Counsels placed reliance on decision reported in 2018 SC OnLine Kar 354 (SRI.P.HOMBALE GOWDA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA in Crl.P.No.57/2018 & connected cases). But, it is pertaining to seizure of demonetization notes and there was an issue of entrustment. Hence, the said principles cannot be made applicable to the case in hand. The
- 18 -
learned Senior Counsels further placed reliance on a decision reported in 2020 SCC OnLine 1427 (T.M. SANNA KOTRAIAH vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA), but the facts & circumstances are entirely different and this is regarding misappropriation of laptops. But in the instant case, the entire case is based on cyber offence and siphoning bit coins and allowing the accused persons in different crimes under the investigation undertaken by the petitioners to siphon of the bit coins and to hack the authorised sites. Hence, the principles enunciated in the above cited decision will not come to the aid of the petitioner in any way.
19. The learned Senior Counsels further place reliance on decision reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 (SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETRE vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS) wherein the role of protection of right of personal liberty was considered, with reference to Sections 438, 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C. But the facts & circumstances are entirely different and considering the fact that petitioners are the Police Officers
- 19 -
much expectations are regarding investigation, but if they themselves involved in illegal activities, then the entire faith in the system is bound to collapse. In this context, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on decision of the Apex Court reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 240 (STATE OF JHARKHAND vs. SANDEEP KUMAR). In the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court in para No.10 has observed as under:
"10. In the light of these serious allegations made against no less than a senior police officer, an essential cog in the machinery of law enforcement, the High Court ought not to have taken a liberal view in the matter for the mere asking. Considering the position held by the respondent, even if he was suspended from service and the charge sheet had already been filed against him, the possibility of his tampering with the witnesses and the evidence was sufficiently high. That apart, grant of such relief to a police officer facing allegations of manipulating the investigation so as to favour an accused would send out a wrong signal in society. It would be against public interest."
- 20 -
20. In the instant case also there are serious allegations against the Police Officers and if they are granted anticipatory bail, there is every possibility of they tampering the prosecution witnesses. The records prima facie establish that they have attempted to destruct the evidence available and assisted the accused in the custody during the investigation of the crimes to have unlawful gain. Hence, in view of the principles enunciated in the above cited decision question of petitioner seeking anticipatory bail does not arise at all, as their custodial interrogation is essential.
21. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further placed decision reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282 (SRIKANT UPADHYAY AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has again had an occasion to consider the anticipatory bail of a person against whom proclamation has been issued. This issue is elaborately dealt by the Hon'ble Apex Court and held that proclaiming offender does not have any right to seek anticipatory bail. This decision is based on the
- 21 -
decision of the Apex Court in the case Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 8 SCC 730. Hence, the conduct of the petitioner/Shridhar K Pujar discloses that he is not only proclaimed offender, but against him the crime for offence under Section 307 IPC is also now registered, as it is alleged that when there was an attempt to serve notice on him in this case, he attempted on serving officer.
22. Looking to the above facts and circumstances and in view of the above cited decisions, question of admitting the petitioners/accused Nos. 3 & 5 on anticipatory bail does not arise at all. The petitioners being the Police Officers holding high position, there are higher chances of manipulating the records as well as destruction of the evidence, as there is already an allegation of attempt of destruction of the evidence. Hence, looking to the facts and circumstances, both the petitions being devoid of any merits do not survive for consideration and need to be rejected. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
- 22 -
ORDER Both Criminal Petition Nos.2535/2024 and 2146/2024 stand dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE DS