Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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 NC: 2025:KHC:11059 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:

i. FIR lacks specific allegations against the petitioners and that investigation was conducted without any prima facie evidence of the offence.
ii. The Sessions Court erroneously held that, petitioners were accused of destabilizing the national defense data for illegal purposes and engaging in data theft, which was deemed a menace that needed to be NC: 2025:KHC:11059 nipped in the bud. However, there is no evidence on record to substantiate such a threat to national defense, nor there is any data, information or document indicating data theft. Complaint does not indicate any threat to national security and no offence under Section 66(F) of the IT Act was established.
NC: 2025:KHC:11059 v. Despite lacking proof of data theft, the complainant prompted the police to conduct search and seize the devices of the accused on the next day. The respondent disregarded due process, failing to make a report or list of seized assets or draw mahazar.
vi. The unlawful detention, arrest and public parading of accused No.2 at his former office under the complainant's instructions constitute serious legal violations. These actions have led the petitioners to apprehend their imminent arrest fearing similar unlawful treatment. No incriminating material is found and no chargesheet is filed till date.

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