Karnataka High Court
Newspace Research And Technologies ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 April, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 07.04.2025
Pronounced on : 25.04.2025 R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.8403 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
NEWSPACE RESEARCH AND
TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
2ND FLOOR, GV TOWERS, SAHAKAR NAGAR
SANJEEVINI NAGAR,BENGALURU
KARNATAKA - 560 092
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
BHAVANA VIJAYKUMAR.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI ANGAD KAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CEN POLICE STATION
NORTH EAST DIVISION
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064.
(REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT
GOVERNMENT PLEADER)
2
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
BENGALURU CITY POLICE
INFANTRY ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
NORTH - EAST DIVISION
BENGALURU CITY POLICE
AMRUTH NAGAR MAIN ROAD
SECTOR B, AMRUTHNAGAR
BYATARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU
BYATARAYANAPURA CMC AND OG PART
KARNATAKA - 560 092.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
NORTH - EAST CEN CRIME POLICE STATION
HWW+CX2, NEHRU NAGAR
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 064.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAHUL CARIAPPA K. S., AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION, DIRECTING
THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSTITUTE A SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
TEAM (SIT), HEADED BY A SENIOR IPS OFFICER OF
UNIMPEACHABLE INTEGRITY AND COMPRISING DIGITAL FORENSIC
EXPERTS, TO CONDUCT, SUPERVISE AND MONITOR THE
INVESTIGATION IN CRIME NO. 1025/2024, REGISTERED BEFORE
THE NORTH-EAST CEN CRIME POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 66, 66(B),
66(C) OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT AND SECTIONS
318(2), 318(3), AND 318(4) OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA
FURNISHED AS ANNEXURE-C
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 07.04.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by
issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to constitute a Special
Investigation Team to conduct, supervise and monitor investigation
in Crime No.1025 of 2024 registered for offences punishable under
Sections 66, 66(B) and 66(C) of the Information Technology Act,
2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and Sections
318(2), 318(3), and 318(4) of the BNS.
2. Heard Sri Angad Kamath, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Sri Rahul Cariappa K.S., learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:-
The petitioner is said to be a Company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 2013. The petitioner/Company registers a
complaint on 24-12-2024 alleging data theft by its former
employees. This results in registration of a crime in Crime No.1025
of 2024 on 25-12-2024. Accused No.1 or the other accused were
4
not taken into custody despite they not being granted any bail by
any competent Court. The subject petition is preferred seeking the
aforesaid prayer, as also a prayer to take the accused into custody.
This Court, on 25-03-2025, has passed the following order:
"Heard Sri Angad Kamath, learned counsel appearing for
petitioner and Sri Rahul Cariappa, learned Additional
Government Advocate representing the respondents.
This Court, on 20.03.2025, had passed the following
order:
"Heard the learned counsel Sri.Angad Kamath,
appearing for the petitioner.
The petitioner is the complainant. The learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation is, the
accused in the crime who are four in number have are
roaming free without them being arrested for custodial
interrogation, notwithstanding the fact that two of the
Courts i.e., the concerned Court and coordinate bench of
this Court both have held that the custodial interrogation of
the accused is necessary. He would take this Court through
a notice formation of a team on 25/12/2024 directing arrest
of the accused. The notice on the next day, gets converted
to a 35(3) of BNSS notice with certain conditions.
The learned counsel would submit that the accused
were in fact arrested at Delhi, but in the light of the notice
issued under Section 35(3) of BNSS, they have not
appeared and infact disappeared as on date.
The learned AGA to secure instructions as to why
despite the necessity of custodial interrogation no steps are
taken to take the accused into custody, and also secure
instructions, as to what has become of the constitution of
the committee on 25/12/2024.
5
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
evidence also is being destroyed on certain external
influence.
The learned Additional Government Advocate to also
secure instructions in that regard and see to that the mirror
images of the phones seized are kept intact.
List the matter on 25.03.2025, in the fresh
matters list."
In furtherance of the said order, it is now mentioned by
the learned Additional Government Advocate that accused Nos.1
and 3 who were all along roaming free, have now been taken
into custody. The crime comes to be registered on 25.12.2024,
pursuant to which, a team formed from the State to apprehend
accused Nos.1 and 3 travelled to Delhi, arrest them and let
them off later, by a method of issuing notice, under Section
35(3) of the BNSS.
Once the arrest has happened, there can be no notice
under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. Therefore, it appears to be a
ruse to get over the custody by accused Nos.1 and 3. It
becomes evident, as accused Nos.1 and 3 are now been taken
into custody after 80 days of registration of the crime despite
the fact that two Courts, the Court of Sessions and the
coordinate bench of this Court, have rejected the anticipatory
bail petition filed by accused Nos.1 and 3.
Therefore, it does not prima facie indicate any semblance
of fairness in investigation, more so, when this Court would
peruse the observations of the Court Commissioner appointed
by this Court.
Therefore, list the matter on 02.04.2025 in the fresh
matters list.
Papers of investigation conducted till 01.04.2025 be
placed before this Court, by the next date."
6
Again on 02-04-2025, this Court passed the following order:
"Sri Angad Kamath, learned counsel for petitioner submits
that office objections are complied with.
Heard Sri Angad Kamath, learned counsel for petitioner
and Sri Rahul Cariyappa, learned Additional Government
Advocate for the respondents - State.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner
has sought two prayers. The second prayer was with regard to
taking of the accused into custody, which had not happened for
93 days after registration of the crime.
This Court on 25.03.2025, had passed the following
order:
"Heard Sri Angad Kamath, learned counsel appearing
for petitioner and Sri Rahul Cariappa, learned Additional
Government Advocate representing the respondents.
This Court, on 20.03.2025, had passed the following
order:
"Heard the learned counsel Sri.Angad
Kamath, appearing for the petitioner.
The petitioner is the complainant. The
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
allegation is, the accused in the crime who are four
in number have are roaming free without them being
arrested for custodial interrogation, notwithstanding
the fact that two of the Courts i.e., the concerned
Court and coordinate bench of this Court both have
held that the custodial interrogation of the accused is
necessary. He would take this Court through a notice
formation of a team on 25/12/2024 directing arrest
of the accused. The notice on the next day, gets
converted to a 35(3) of BNSS notice with certain
conditions.
The learned counsel would submit that the
accused were in fact arrested at Delhi, but in the
light of the notice issued under Section 35(3) of
BNSS, they have not appeared and infact
disappeared as on date.
7
The learned AGA to secure instructions as to
why despite the necessity of custodial interrogation
no steps are taken to take the accused into custody,
and also secure instructions, as to what has become
of the constitution of the committee on 25/12/2024.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the evidence also is being destroyed on certain
external influence.
The learned Additional Government Advocate
to also secure instructions in that regard and see to
that the mirror images of the phones seized are kept
intact.
List the matter on 25.03.2025, in the fresh
matters list."
In furtherance of the said order, it is now mentioned
by the learned Additional Government Advocate that
accused Nos.1 and 3 who were all along roaming free, have
now been taken into custody. The crime comes to be
registered on 25.12.2024, pursuant to which, a team
formed from the State to apprehend accused Nos.1 and 3
travelled to Delhi, arrest them and let them off later, by a
method of issuing notice, under Section 35(3) of the BNSS.
Once the arrest has happened, there can be no
notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. Therefore, it
appears to be a ruse to get over the custody by accused
Nos.1 and 3. It becomes evident, as accused Nos.1 and 3
are now been taken into custody after 80 days of
registration of the crime despite the fact that two Courts,
the Court of Sessions and the coordinate bench of this
Court, have rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by
accused Nos.1 and 3.
Therefore, it does not prima facie indicate any
semblance of fairness in investigation, more so, when this
Court would peruse the observations of the Court
Commissioner appointed by this Court.
Therefore, list the matter on 02.04.2025 in the
fresh matters list.
Papers of investigation conducted till 01.04.2025 be
placed before this Court, by the next date."
8
It transpires that on the next day i.e., 26.03.2025, the
accused has been taken into custody. Therefore, the second
prayer that is sought with regard to the custody of the accused
is rendered unnecessary today. In the light of the event
happening, what remains is, the first prayer.
The first prayer is to constitute a Special Investigation
Team to investigate into the alleged cyber crime in the case at
hand.
Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Angad Kamath, has
produced material along with a memo with regard to the
necessity of constitution of a Special Investigation Team in the
case at hand.
Learned counsel appearing for the accused submits that
he be heard in the matter.
It is trite law that an accused would not get audience in a
case, where the matter is considered for transfer of
investigation to any independent agency, as the Apex Court in
plethora of cases has considered this issue and set the
controversy to rest with regard to the audience of the accused
at the time of transfer of investigation to an independent
agency, unless the complainant himself would make them a
party in the proceedings. The complainant has not made them a
party in these proceedings and is not necessary to be heard.
Therefore, list this matter on 04.04.2025, in the fresh
matters list, to hear the State as to why the matter should not
be transferred or laid before a Special Investigation Team as is
sought by the petitioner.
Office is directed not to print the indication as 'non-
compliance of office objections' on the cause list."
9
4. The second prayer that was sought, was rendered
infructuous, on the score that the accused have been taken into
custody for the purpose of custodial interrogation. Therefore, the
issue now remains is, "whether the prayer of the petitioner
qua constitution of a Special Investigation Team should be
granted or otherwise?"
5. The learned counsel Sri Angad Kamath appearing for the
petitioner would vehemently contend that the Investigating Officer
by name one Thanvir who was to investigate into the crime in
Crime No.1025 of 2024 himself forms a team and the team visits
Noida to arrest accused No.1. Instead of proceeding with the
investigation and custodial interrogation or otherwise, the
Investigating Officer issues a notice the next day under Section 35
and 95 of the BNSS. He would submit that after the arrest, there
can be no notice under Section 35 of BNSS. It is his submission that
it is deliberately done to help the accused. He would take this Court
through an order passed in Writ Petition No.32999 of 2024 to
demonstrate that a Court Commissioner was appointed for the
purpose of inspection and taking of photograph of the place of the
10
accused, to buttress his submission that the Police have been
influenced by a Police Officer of Rajasthan and, therefore, the
accused in the case at hand were not arrested, despite registration
of crime 90 days ago.
5.1. The learned counsel would further contend that the
coordinate Bench while rejecting the plea for anticipatory bail has
also observed that accused were necessary for custodial
interrogation. Even then, the accused were not taken into custody
and only when this Court has passed the order, they were taken
into custody. He would contend that the allegations against the
accused are all complex cyber crimes, where security of the nation
is at stake, as the petitioner is a Drone manufacturing Company
and its former employees have stolen the know-how and have
started their own Company compromising security of the nation. It
is not a case of ordinary complaint and simple data theft. It is a
case of cyber crime. He would urge that a Special Investigation
Team be constituted as, such cyber crimes have grown in numbers
and there are no technical experts to investigate into such crimes.
He would, above all, contend that the very Investigating Officer is
11
caught red-handed receiving bribe and is placed under suspension.
Therefore, the very integrity of investigation that is conducted by
him is in doubt.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate
would admit that the earlier Investigating Officer is embroiled in a
crime for offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption
Act. The new Investigating Officer has taken over a week ago and
there has been certain progress in the investigation. He would,
therefore, submit that the Court can monitor the investigation and
direct filing of the report before the concerned Court. He would seek
dismissal of the petition, contending that there is no necessity to
constitute a Special Investigation Team. He would, however, leave
the decision to the Court.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
12
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The accused, in
the case at hand, being former employees of the petitioner is a
matter of record. The petitioner is in the business of manufacture of
Drones for the Defence. The former employees are alleged to have
stolen highly sensitive proprietary data including UAV source codes,
CAD designs and confidential defense technologies which can be
used for potential misuse at their new employment. The petitioner
has a huge clientele which all relate to national security
stakeholders such as, the Indian Army, Air Force, Navy, BEL, HAL
and DRDO and all contracts underlying are highly sensitive in
nature. As observed hereinabove, the alleged stolen information
pertains to cutting edge UAV (Unmanned Serial Vehicle), which is
popularly known as Drone. When the petitioner comes to know of
data theft, immediately it registers a complaint on 24-12-2024. The
complaint reads as follows:
"To Date:24-12-2024
The Inspector/Station House Officer,
CEN, Cyber Crime Police Station,
Nehru Nagar, Yelahanka,
Bengaluru - 560 064.
Respected Sir,
Subject: Report of data Theft by co-employees.
13
1. This report concerns a case of data theft, illegal and
fraudulent acquisition of critically sensitive information by
three former employees of the complainant-company
(NewSpace Research and Technologies Private Limited):
Mr. Prabhat Sharma [A-1], Mr. Anirudh Putsala [A-2] and
Mr. Akash Patil [A-3]. The said persons conspired to steal
sensitive proprietary information for the benefit of a rival
firm, Lenviz Technologies Pvt. Ltd. [A-5], where they are
now employed.
2. Mr. Sharma, while serving as Vice-President, was
dishonestly operating as a director of Lenviz
Technologies, with his wife, Garima Sharma [A-4].
Together, they orchestrated the theft of confidential
data, including source codes, CAD designs,
copyrighted information and project files, Evidence
reveals that Mr. Sharma abused this data to
place a competing bid for the Meher Baba Swarm
Drone Competition-II on behalf of Lenviz
Technologies.
3. An IT audit of Mr. Putsala's and Mr. Patil's laptop
post-resignation uncovered a separate AutoDisk
Fusion 360 workspace labeled "Lenviz_Tech"
revealing unauthorized use of the complainant's
data. The complainant has reliably learnt from
reliable sources that Mr. Putsala and Mr. Patil
illegally hacked, copied and shared highly sensitive
information, including source codes and prototypes,
with Lenviz Technologies. The said accused persons
also conspired to erase evidence pertaining to the
crime.
4. The stolen information has been criminally abused
by Lenviz Technologies to develop products
strikingly similar to those of the complainant and to
secure defense contracts, causing irreparable loss
and damage. The accused persons have violated
their employment agreement and committed
offences under the Information Technology Act,
2000 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which
includes Section 84B, Section 43 r/w Section 66,
Section 66B of the IT Act, Section 63 of the
14
Copyright act, 1963 and Section 61(2) r/w Section
316(2) of the BNSS, 2023.
5. The complainant requests an immediate investigation,
seizure of stolen data, and confiscation of devices from
the accused to prevent further misuse. Swift legal action
is imperative. The offences are suspected to have been
committed during their period employment i.e.,,
[2.11.2020 - 2.08.2024]."
(Emphasis added)
On registration of the complaint, a crime in Crime No.1025 of 2024
comes to be registered for the afore-quoted offences. Pursuant to
registration of crime, a team of officers is formed by CEN Police
Station and the team travels to Noida for the purpose of arrest of
accused No.1. Accused No.1 is arrested. The arrest memo reads as
follows:
Date: 25-12-2024
Sub: Arresting A1 Accused Prabhat Sharma S/o Shishupal
Sharma and seizing his laptop, mobile phone etc. and
producing before me for further investigation.
Ref: CEN PS North East Division, Bangalore Cr.No.1025/ 2024
u/s 66, 66(B), 66(C) of IT Act and 318(2), 318 (3),
318(4) of BNS.
A case in CEN PS North East Division Yelahanka,
Bangalore in Crime No.1025/2024 u/s 66, 66(B), 66(C) of IT Act
and 318(2), 318(3), 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is
registered for data theft of classified and sensitive nature. You
are instructed to secure and arrest A1 Prabhat Sharma S/o
15
Sishupal Sharma R/O #L-58, Sector-11, Noida, Gautham
Buddhanagar, Uttar Pradesh- 201 301. In above referred
case, seized his personal laptop, mobile phone and other
electronic devices and produce before me for further
investigation.
Sd/-
Investigation Officer
Asst.Commissioner of Police
C.E.N. Police Station,
North-East Division,
Bengaluru.
01) Shree Raghu A.C.,
Police Sub-Inspector,
CEN Police Station.
02) Shree Basavanagouda Choudri
PC-14400, Police Constable,
CEN Police Station.
03) Shree Shrikant Lamani,
PC-20594 Police Constable,
CEN Police Station.
Copy to DCP North East Office."
The arrest should have led to bringing the accused to Bangalore
and continued the investigation. Strangely, the Investigating
Officer issues a notice under Section 35 of the BNSS. The notice
reads as follows:
"To Date: 25/12/2024
Prabhat Sharma, S/o Shishupal Sharma,
#L-58, Sector-11, Noida, Gautham Buddha nagar,
Uttar Pradesh 201 301
Mobile No.8826030870
16
In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1)
of Section 41A and 91 of Cr.P.C., I hereby inform you that
during the Investigation of FIR No.1025/2024 u/s 66,
66(B), 66(C) of IT Act and 318(2), 318(3), 318(4) of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita it is revealed that there are
reasonable grounds to question you to ascertain facts and
circumstances from you, in relation to the present investigation.
Hence you are directed to appear before me at 10.30 a.m. on
26-12-2024 at CEN Police Station.
You are directed to comply with all and/or the following
directions:
(a) You will not commit any offence in future.
(b) You will not tamper with the evidences in the case in any
manner whatsoever.
(c) You will not make any threat, inducement, or promise to
any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing, such facts to the court or to
the police officer.
(d) You will appear before the Court as and when
required/directed.
(e) You will join the investigation of the case as and when
required and will cooperate in the investigation.
(f) You will disclose all the facts truthfully without concealing
any part relevant for the purpose of investigation to reach
to the right conclusion of the case.
(g) You will produce all relevant documents/material required
for the purpose of investigation.
(h) You will render your full co-operation/assistance in
apprehension of the accomplice.
(i) You will not allow any manner destruction of any evidence
relevant for the purpose of investigation/ trial of the case.
(j) Any other conditions, which may be imposed by the
investigating officer/SHO as per the facts of the case.
Failure to attend/comply with the terms of this Notice
can render you liable for arrest under Section 41A(3) and
(4) of CrPC.
Sd/-
Investigation Officer.
Asst. Commissioner of Police
17
CEN Police Station,
North-East Division,
Bengaluru.
Received: Sd/- Prabhat Sharma, 26-12-2024 18.34 Hrs."
Once the arrest has happened, it is ununderstandable as to how the
Investigating Officer has issued a notice under Section 35(3) for
appearance. What ought to have been custodial interrogation, leads
to appearance before the Investigating Officer. It is the first needle
of suspicion with regard to fake investigation being conducted in the
case at hand. The petitioner then approached this Court in Writ
Petition No.32999 of 2024 seeking seizure of entire material
claimed to be belonging to the petitioner. A Court Commissioner is
appointed. The Court Commissioner draws up his report of seizure
in vivid detail. It reads as follows:
".... .... ....
Upon arrival at the residence of Mr.Prabhat sharma at
B2/510, tower 11, silver city & sector 93, Noida U.P-210304,
court commissioner technical staff member, Mr. Manoj,
approached the security of the gated community to request
their assistance in executing the search and seizure process. In
accordance with the community visitor protocol, the security
personnel Contacted the defendant's representative to inform
them of the raid. However the defendants representative denied
entry to Mr. Manoj and refused to allow the search to proceed.
The Security personnel further informed Mr. Manoj that a Sub-
inspector from Bengaluru had visited the same flat on 26th
18
December 2024 and reportedly seized a laptop, two mobiles ana
a hard drive.
After being denied entry, the defendants
representative collected Mr. Monoj's mobile number From
visitor log. About ten minutes later, a Women, who
claimed to be a DCP from Jaipur and the sister of the
defendant's wife, called Mr. Manoj and demanded that he
vacate the Premises immediately, there by Interfering
with the execution of the court commissioner warrant.
Due to the denial of access and the interference
from the defendant's representative, Team 2 decided to
withdraw from premises. Mr. Manoj, then rejoined Team
1, which was waiting at knowledge Park - II Police
Station for Police assistance to raid the defendant's
office premises. The Station House officer [SHO] was
briefed about the case and requested police protection
and assistance for the Search and seizure process. The
SHO then directed the Investigation teams to expo Mart,
knowledge park-II, greater Noida, where a police team
led by S.I. Sunny tomar could provide assistance with the
raid. upon reaching expo Mart, the teams were
accompanied by Sub-Inspector Sunny tomar and his
team, and the details of the court Commissioner's Search
Seizure Warrant were shared with them.
Both investigation teams, accompanied by the police led
by S.I Sunny tomar, Proceeded to the seizure location at GNEC
Ⅱ
IIT Roorkee campus in knowledge Park- , Greater Noida.
Upon arrival we met the campus director to explain
the case and the intent of the search. The Campus
director Informed us that Defendant No.2 (Lenviz
technologies Pvt Ltd) had vacated their office 15-20 days
earlier. He further explained that the company had been
involved in drone manufacturing on the campus,
producing around 10-15 drones, which they took with
them. Citing marketing purpose. However they never
returned and office remained vacant.
When Mr. Arun Kumar k, the technical Staff for the Court
Commissioner enquired for any evidence regarding the
19
company's Permission to Conduct research on campus, the
Campus director clarified that Defendant No.2 had been
allocated office space through the i-Hub Divyasampark initiative,
a program owned by Mr. Dharamveer singh. The director
Provided us with Mr. Singh's contact number.
Mr. Arun Kumar k then contacted Mr. Singh who
confirmed that he no longer had access to the office keys, Mr.
Singh Provided us with contact number of Mr. Sourav, a
technical associate from-defendant No.2. and informed us that
the main office of Defendant No.2 was located at I-Hub
Divyasampark, IIT Roorkee ear bus Stand - in Haridwar,
Further inquiries with other individuals working at the IIT
incubator campus revealed that defendant no.2's Staff were
often irregular in their attendance, arriving at odd hours and
typically dressed in Casual attire such as t-shirts and shorts, we
gathered a written statement from one Individual who reported
observing activities related to Defendant No.2.
Since the office of Defendant No.2 was locked and No
representatives were present the team decided to conduct a
visual inspection of the premises without entering. Through
transparent glass cubicle (which was locked), we observed
several used Products, unused wires and other electronic
materials inside the office.
These items were identified as potential evidence similar
to products used by plaintiff representative [New space
technologies), who claimed that these materials had been used
in manufacturing of drones. We documented these findings
through Photographs and video recordings.
Later based on Suspicion raised by Mr. Arun kumar
K., the technical staff for the court Commissioner
regarding the locked premise of the defendant, the team
was instructed to Perform a vicinity check, with
permission of Campus director. During this check, the
team discovered locked store room opposite Defendant
No.2's office, which contained unused products and Junk.
After obtaining confirmation from the Campus director to
open the locked storeroom. we identified several drone
20
parts that appeared to be live parts used by plaintiff for
drone manufacturing. these parts were Carefully
documentated through Photographs and video
recordings.
Plaintiff representatives confirmed the relevance of these
parts to the case.
Further investigation revealed three commercial invoices
from an external vendor which was the same vender used by
the plaintiff. These invoices addressed to Defendant No.3 of
Defendant No.2, were recognised by the plaintiff representative
as significant evidence. we seized and carefully packaged these
invoices. The items were placed in an evidence cover, labelled
with an evidence number and sealed. The packaged evidence
was duly signed by the Plaintiff representative (with a
declaration of relevance), advocate representative and police
witnesses to ensure proper chain of custody. The items were
then entered into the inventory.
During the seizure procedure, Mr. Manoj, one of our
technical staff members received continuous phone calls
from individuals claiming to be a DCP from Jaipur and an
ACP from Bangalore, these individuals attempted to
interfere with our operation and instructed us to vacate
the premises, warning of unusual circumstances. The ACP
from Bengaluru specifically enquired" what are you doing
with a group of 12-14 People at the raid location despite
being informed by DCP Jaipur to vacate the Premises?".
He further Cautioned Mr. Manoj to be careful, highlighting
that the location was in UP, which prompted concerns
about the camera at the locked premises is a wifi enabled
camera and defendants or defendant's representatives
were observing the investigation team during the raid,
supporting to this our team had noticed camera light
turning on during out exit which was off when we
entered the location.
In response to these escalating threats and Interferences
the team prioritized safety over continuing the search and
decided to leave the premises.
21
As a result, we were unable to conduct the Search at
another address L58 Sector II, Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar,
UP -201301.
It was informed to the investigation team by local
individuals that Sector II does not have L-58, and the team was
advised to check Sector 12. However due to the persistent
interference from phone calls by individuals posing as DCP and
ACP and given the heightened Safety concerns, we prioritized
the safety of the Investigation team and decided to Proceed
directly to airport.
Please refer to the DVD Enclosed along with this report
that showcases the location being locked and inaccessible at
lenviz technologies, Knowledge Park II."
(Emphasis added)
A perusal at the Court Commissioner's report would indicate that he
was himself threatened and influenced in scribing the report in the
manner that he wanted. Nonetheless the report is submitted. The
accused apply for grant of anticipatory bail. That comes to be
rejected by the concerned Court on 13-01-2025 holding that
custodial interrogation of the accused was necessary. This is
challenged before the coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal
Petition No.695 of 2025 connected with Criminal Petition No.698 of
2025. The coordinate Bench, in great detail, rejects anticipatory
bail, notwithstanding the fact that offences alleged were all
punishable between 3 years to 7 years imprisonment. It becomes to
22
germane to notice the observations of the coordinate Bench. They
read as follows:
".... .... ....
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.
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
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
23
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
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."
(Emphasis supplied)
The order comes to be passed on 18-03-2025. As observed
hereinabove, the crime comes to be registered on 24-12-2024. The
anticipatory bail sought by the accused before the Court of Sessions
comes to be rejected on 13-01-2025. There were no protective
orders granted. Notwithstanding the same, the accused were not
taken into custody.
24
9. The petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., seeking
quashment of proceedings is pending but no stay is granted, not
even protective orders are granted therein. It is only when this
Court passed an order dated 25-03-2025, the next day the accused
have been taken into custody. Though an arrest memo was drawn
on 25-12-2024 that was only a paper arrest. The next day, the
Investigating Officer issues Section 35(3) notice. Section 35(3)
notice, is trite, would be issued only when the accused or any other
person is to appear before the Investigating Officer for the purpose
of examination/enquiry. If the accused had already been arrested,
what should have been was custodial interrogation. But, what
happens is, conversion of an arrest into Section 35(3) notice. All
the aforesaid link, in the chain of events, would undoubtedly cast
suspicion upon the conduct of a fair investigation at the hands of
the Investigating Officer. It may be that the Investigating Officer
has changed today, but that would not be a panacea to the present
problem.
25
EMERGING CRIME:
10. The crimes over the years have emerged in different
hues and forms. In this digital age where crime knows no
borders and malfeasance is coded with keystrokes, the tools
of conduct of investigation of such emerging crimes must evolve.
An ordinary Investigating Officer or a conventional Investigating
Officer would not be so equipped with such emerging crimes to
decode the labyrinth of cyber crimes. Therefore, the Investigating
Officers who are also acquainted with technology or trained in
digital forensics, those who can trace the invisible and pierce
encryption and unearth the data buried or data theft, would be
required to deal with the emerging crimes.
11. The subject crime has the colour of a cyber
espionage. It is a multi-layered crime involving nuances of
defence technology and concerns of national defence.
Investigations into such crimes demand not merely
procedural competence, but an amalgamation of technical
expertise and forensic acumen. It is a lamentable reality
26
that conventional Investigating Officers who are trained for
the crimes of yesterday, would undoubtedly find themselves
ill-equipped to grapple with cyber crimes. Investigation of
crimes of such magnitude cannot be done by the
Investigating Officer who is now appointed, due to lack of
technical expertise. I have no manner of doubt that an
ordinary investigation would amount to miscarriage of
justice. Therefore, this Court, not only finds it appropriate but
imperative to constitute a Special Investigation Team, as scales of
justice must not tilt due to incompetence of Investigating
Officers. If the crimes are sophisticated, the Investigating
Officers too shall be.
THE NEW AGE CRIME AND THE NEED FOR A NEW AGE
INVESTIGATION:
NECESSITY OF A PARADIGM SHIFT:
12. In this digital age, crime transcends frontiers with the
click of a mouse. Information which is the life blood of modern
civilization can be weaponized by a few keystrokes. Crimes are
27
thus committed by the play of keystrokes, sitting in front of a
monitor. The conventional crimes like robbery, theft, breaking
open the lock and stealing money have largely gone into the
oblivion with the emergence of the new age crime, the cyber crime.
It is in public domain that the rate of filing of charge sheet, in such
new age crimes is only at 9%, not because the accused are not
guilty, it is because the Investigating Officers are not equipped to
bring those accused to books. This is due to lack of expertise in
dealing with cyber crimes.
13. The State thus must recognize the existential threat and
evolve, failing which, justice to those victims will become a mirage.
It is again in public domain that the State of Karnataka recognizing
the huge problem of cyber crime, has in fact come up with a novel
idea of a cyber command centre, to be headed by an officer of the
rank of the Director General of Police. If a cyber command centre
is established to combat cyber crimes and strengthen cyber
security, it would usher a new beginning of tackling the new age
crime with new age investigating centres. This is the paradigm
shift that is imperative. Such cyber command centres should be
28
made meaningfully functional by appropriate officers manning such
cyber command centres. It is only then the State will leap forward
to tackle the emergence and growth of cyber crime, failing which,
the citizen who has been a victim of cyber crime or cyber frauds will
never get justice. Therefore, the State shall endeavour to give life
to the cyber command centres or constitute a separate wing to
tackle cyber crime like the CCB, which could be a cyber crime
investigation bureau. The aforesaid direction has become
imperative for the reasons indicated hereinabove. Such
Investigating Agency will be a pioneer in the new age crime by a
new age investigative branch.
14. The aforesaid direction should not remain only on paper
or become a paper direction. Thus, it would not be appropriate to
close the present proceeding, but instead a concept of continuing
mandamus would be necessary. Thus the State shall place before
this Court, the report of investigation of the Special Investigation
Team, on its completion and also place the developments in
complying with the directions at paragraph No.13 supra.
29
15. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) Crime in Crime No.1025 of 2024 shall now be
reinvestigated by a Special Investigation Team
comprising of:
1. Sri Pranab Mohanty - IPS, Director General of Police, who shall head the Team.
2. Sri Bhushan Gulab Rao Borase - IPS
3. Smt. Nisha James - IPS
(iii) Mandamus issues to the 1st respondent/State Government to forthwith hand over the investigation to the Special Investigation Team aforesaid.
(iv) The Investigating Officer shall transmit the entire papers of investigation, if any, conducted to the said Special Investigation Team.
(v) The Special Investigation Team so constituted shall submit its report within 3 months, from the date it is constituted, and a copy of the same be placed before this Court thereafter.
30(vi) Copy of this order shall be furnished to, the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka; the Principal Secretary, Department of Home Affairs; the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Government of Karnataka, for the implementation of paragraph No.13 of the order.
(vii) The steps taken towards the implementation of the clause (vi) supra, shall from time to time be placed before the Court.
(viii) List this matter on 02.07.2025 at 2.30 p.m., for further hearing.
SD/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:SS 31 MNPJ: W.P.No.8403/2025 02.05.2025 CHAMBER ORDER This Court on 25.04.2025, passed the following order:
"15. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) Crime in Crime No.1025 of 2024 shall now be reinvestigated by a Special Investigation Team comprising of:
1. Sri Pranab Mohanty - IPS, Director General of Police, who shall head the Team.
2. Sri Bhushan Gulab Rao Borase - IPS
3. Smt. Nisha James - IPS
(iii) Mandamus issues to the 1st respondent/State Government to forthwith hand over the investigation to the Special Investigation Team aforesaid.
(iv) The Investigating Officer shall transmit the entire papers of investigation, if any, conducted to the said Special Investigation Team.
(v) The Special Investigation Team so constituted shall submit its report within 3 months, from the date it is constituted, and a copy of the same be placed before this Court thereafter.
(vi) Copy of this order shall be furnished to, the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka; the 32 Principal Secretary, Department of Home Affairs; the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Government of Karnataka, for the implementation of paragraph No.13 of the order.
(vii) The steps taken towards the implementation of the clause (vi) supra, shall from time to time be placed before the Court.
(viii) List this matter on 02.07.2025 at 2.30 p.m., for further hearing."
Four days later, the learned Additional Government Advocate made a mention that one of the members - Smt. Nisha James, I.P.S., of the Team i.e., Special Investigation Team, directed to be constituted, is now been deputed to UNESCO and therefore, would not be in a position to be a part of the team.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed a memo to take on record the unavailability of Smt. Nisha James, I.P.S., as a member of the SIT. The memo is taken on record.
In the light of the unavailability of the Officer, I deem it appropriate to replace the said Officer with one Sri Sharath M.D., Superintendent of Police - CID as the third member of the Special Investigation Team, so constituted.
Page No.32 is retyped and replaced vide chamber order dated 05.05.2025 33 Therefore, the members of the Special Investigation Team are as follows:
"1. Sri Pranab Mohanty - IPS, Director General of Police, who shall head the Team.
2. Sri Bhushan Gulab Rao Borase - IPS
3. Sri Sharath M.D. - Superintendent of Police
- CID."
This order shall be treated as part and parcel of the main order dated 25.04.2025.
The Registry is directed to rescan the order and issue fresh certified copy of the order forthwith.
Sd/-
(M. NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Page No.33 is retyped and replaced vide chamber order dated 05.05.2025