- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010235442026 NC: 2026:KHC:44507 CRL.P No. 5138 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5138 OF 2026 BETWEEN: PLUTUS RESEARCH PVT LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT B-601 AND 611, PARAGRAPH KHAJANCHI BUSINESS CENTER MONDEAL HEIGHTS, NR. NOVOTEL HOTEL, S G HIGHWAY AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT - 380 015 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISEED SIGNATORY MR. SAURABH BHOLA S/O MR. RAVINDER KUMAR BHOLA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT GLAT NO.3065 PRESTIGE PARK VIEW HOPE FARM JUNCTION WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU - 560 066. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ANGAD KAMATH, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH CEN CRIME POLICE STATION NORTHEAST DIVISION, BENGALURU NOW, BY CHIEF INVESTIGATION OFFICER SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM REP. BY HIGH COURT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE 560 001. 2. AASHAY HARLALKA S/O SUNIL HARLALKA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010235442026 NC: 2026:KHC:44507 CRL.P No. 5138 of 2026 R/AT SHAHSTRINAGAR BILWARAB HILWARA, RAJASTHAN - 311 001 ALSO D-005, UMIYA WOODS RESPONDENT NO.2 PATANDUR AGRAHARA EC ROAD DODSWORTH LAYOUT, WHITEFIELD BENGALURU - 560 066. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RANGASWAMY R, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI B.K. SAMPATHKUMAR, SR. ADV., FOR SRI SURAJ S, ADV., FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439(2) CR.PC (FILED U/S 483(3) OF BNSS) PRAYING TO CANCEL THE ORDER OF BAIL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2025 PASSED BY THE LD LV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-56) IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.5291/2025 ARISING OUT OF FIR REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.176/2025 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT CEN CRIME POLICE FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 316, 318(4) OF THE BNS 2023 AND SECTIONS 66 OF THE IT ACT 2000 FURNISHED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Defacto complainant is before this Court in this petition filed under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023, with a prayer to set- aside the order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the Court of LV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.No.5291/2025 and cancel the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 herein in Crime No.176/2025 registered by Whitefield CEN Crime Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010235442026 NC: 2026:KHC:44507 CRL.P No. 5138 of 2026 punishable under Sections 65 and 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 316 and 318(4) of BNS, 2023. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. FIR in Crime No.176/2025 was registered by Whitefield CEN Crime Police Station, Bengaluru, for the aforesaid offences against respondent No.2 herein based on the first information dated 29.03.2025 received from Saurabh Bhola, authorized signatory and Director of the petitioner company. Apprehending arrest in the case, respondent No.2 had filed Crl.Misc.No.5291/2025 before the jurisdictional Sessions Court at Bengaluru which was allowed vide order impugned dated 11.07.2025. Assailing the same, petitioner company/defacto complainant is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that learned Sessions Judge was not justified in granting anticipatory bail to respondent No.2 considering the gravity of allegations found against him. He submits that respondent No.2 is in a position to tamper with the evidence and this aspect has not been - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010235442026 NC: 2026:KHC:44507 CRL.P No. 5138 of 2026 appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge while granting anticipatory bail. Respondent No.2 has committed theft of data belonging to the petitioner company and therefore, jurisdictional Civil Court has passed an interim order restraining respondent No.2 from using, disseminating or misappropriating the data belonging to the petitioner company, which contains confidential information including trading algorithms, codes and client databases. He submits that Courts are required to be cautious while granting anticipatory bail to accused in cases of cyber crime. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (i) P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement in Criminal appeal No.1340/2019 (ii) Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C. K. and Another (iii) Abhinav Gupta vs. State of Haryana - 2008 SCC Online P&H (iv) Prabhat Sharma vs. State of Karnataka - Crl.P.No.695/2025 c/w Crl.P.No.698/2025 - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010235442026 NC: 2026:KHC:44507 CRL.P No. 5138 of 2026 (v) New Space Research and Technologies Limited vs. State of Karnataka and Others - WP No.8403/2025 (vi) Nishant Roy vs. State of UP - Crl.Misc.Bail Application No.23954/2024. 5. Per contra, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that respondent No.2 was one of the Directors of the petitioner company. Since, other Directors were indulged in malpractices, he had filed complaints to various authorities including SEBI and therefore, respondent No.2 was abruptly removed from the post of Director of the petitioner company. Respondent No.2 has already approached NCLAT and the resolution passed by the petitioner company removing respondent No.2 from the post of Director has been stayed. He submits that respondent No.2 had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.12927/2025 seeking quashment of the proceedings in Crime No.176/2025 registered by Whitefield CEN Crime Police Station, Bengaluru and this Court had granted interim stay of further proceedings in the said petition. Thereafter, based on fresh complaint of the petitioner, FIR in Crime No.502/2025 was registered against Akshay Yelmelwar, - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010235442026 NC: 2026:KHC:44507 CRL.P No. 5138 of 2026 who was one of the employee of the petitioner company. In the said case, at the instance of the petitioner, Director General of Police, Cyber Command, Bengaluru had issued a communication to interrogate respondent No.2. Apprehending arrest in the said case, respondent No.2 had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.5178/2026, which was allowed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.04.2026. 6. He submits that all the arguments which are addressed by the petitioner's counsel in this case has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.5178/2026 wherein anticipatory bail has been granted to respondent No.2 herein in Crime No.502/2025 registered by the very same Police Station with similar allegations against Akshay Yelmelwar. He submits that the order impugned has been referred to in the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Crl.P.No.5178/2026. He submits that respondent No.2 has appeared before the Investigation officer and fully cooperated for the purpose of investigation. There is no allegation against him that he has violated any of the bail conditions imposed by the Sessions Court in the order - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010235442026 NC: 2026:KHC:44507 CRL.P No. 5138 of 2026 impugned or in the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.5178/2026. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 7. Records would reveal that respondent No.2 was one of the three directors of the petitioner company. In and around the month of June, 2024, dispute arose between the directors of the company owning to various conflicts and disagreements among them. It appears that respondent No.2 had submitted complaints against the petitioner company before the Registrar of Companies, SEBI and other regulatory organizations with regard to the mismanagement of the Company affairs, ultimately, it ended up in petitioner company passing a resolution on 28.10.2025 removing respondent No.2 from the post of directorship. Thereafter, petitioner had approached NCLAT in Company Petition No.48/2025 and in the said proceedings, the aforesaid resolution passed by the petitioner company was stayed by NCLAT vide order dated 17.04.2026 passed on IA No.131/2025. A further direction was also issued to conduct audit of the financial and operational affairs of the company by an independent auditor. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010235442026 NC: 2026:KHC:44507 CRL.P No. 5138 of 2026 8. It appears that in the meanwhile, petitioner company had filed commercial arbitration application in Com.A.A.No.162/2025 before the Commercial Court, Bengaluru and in the said case, interim order was passed restraining the respondent No.2 by an ad-interim order of injunction from using, disclosing, disseminating or misappropriating any confidential information of the petitioner company, which is referred to in Document Nos.3, 4, 9, 12, 14, 20 and 27 of the application filed in the said case, including trading algorithms, codes and client databases to any third party in violation of the terms of the agreement. In addition to the same, ad interim order of temporary injunction was also granted restraining respondent No.2 from directly or indirectly soliciting or attempting to solicit any client of the petitioner company in terms of Clause 11 of the employment agreement. It is not in dispute that this order of temporary injunction passed by the Commercial Court is in operation as on this date. Therefore, the apprehension expressed by the learned Counsel for petitioner in this regard is misconceived. Learned Sessions Judge having considered all the aforesaid aspects of the matter by a well - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010235442026 NC: 2026:KHC:44507 CRL.P No. 5138 of 2026 reasoned order, has granted anticipatory bail to respondent No.2 in the present case. 9. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 has complied with all the terms and conditions imposed by learned Sessions Judge while granting anticipatory bail to him. It appears that prior to respondent No.2 filing anticipatory bail application in Crl.Misc.No.5291/2025, he had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.12927/2025 under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.176/2025 registered by Whitefield CEN Crime Police Station, Bengaluru. In the said criminal petition, an interim order was granted staying further proceedings in Crime No.176/2025 and thereafter, the petitioner company had filed another criminal case in Crime No.502/2025 with similar allegations against Akshay Yelmelwar, who was the employee of the petitioner company. It appears that on the representation of one of the director of the petitioner company, the Director General of Police Cyber Crime, Bengaluru, had issued a communication to the Investigation Officer in the said case to interrogate respondent No.2 herein and it is under these circumstances, - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010235442026 NC: 2026:KHC:44507 CRL.P No. 5138 of 2026 respondent no.2 herein had approached the jurisdictional Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.502/2025. Since, the jurisdictional Sessions Court had rejected his bail application, he had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.5178/2026, which was allowed on 16.04.2026. 10. A perusal of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.5178/2026 would go to show that all arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner in the present petition were also canvassed in the said petition and after appreciating the said arguments, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on the very same allegations has granted anticipatory bail to respondent No.2 herein in Crime No.502/2025. In paragraph Nos.16 to 26 of the said order, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under:- "16. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the proposition of law canvassed by learned counsel for the respondent No.2-defacto complainant. What is essential to note in the instant case is that the complaint dated 19.08.2025 produced at Annexure-B, the respondent No.2-defacto complainant has alleged purported data theft and misuse etc., specifically and only against its ex-employee one Akshay Yelmelwar, who is not before this Court. In the allegation made in - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010235442026 NC: 2026:KHC:44507 CRL.P No. 5138 of 2026 the complaint, name of the petitioner herein is mentioned alleging that the said employee was working under the instruction of the petitioner herein. There is no direct allegation against the petitioner having he committed any offences directly. The said complaint begins with a statement ; ''Subject: Complaint for registration for First Information Report (FIR) and investigation into multiple offences by Mr. Akshay Yelmelwar'' And ends with the prayer as: ''It is humbly prayed that this complaint be taken on record and a FIR be lodged against Akshay and the matter be thoroughly investigated. Company requests that the Akshay be restrained from intimidating, or influencing the Company's employees and be directed to return any data illegally copied and taken by him from the Company's system.'' 17. Thus, admittedly there is no complaint against the petitioner herein. FIR in Crime No.502/2025 is registered only against said Akshay Yelmelwar showing him as a accused. 18. The respondent No.1-Police has issued notice dated 13.02.2026 under Sub Section (3) of Section 35 of BNSS, granting the petitioner herein three days' time to appear before the Investigation Officer in respect of the aforesaid case in Crime No.502/2025. 19. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, even before expiry of the said 3 days, the Investigation Officer has apparently sought for permission to conduct search and seizure of the - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010235442026 NC: 2026:KHC:44507 CRL.P No. 5138 of 2026 premises of the petitioner by submitting a requisition dated 16.02.2026. 20. Close to the heels of this, a communication emanates from the Director General of Police, Cyber Crime as found at Annexure-Z1 of the compilation, the said communication has apparently emanated at the instance of the respondent No.2-defacto complainant. Relevant paragraphs of the said communication are extracted hereunder: “It is seen from the enclosed representation that even though six months have lapsed following the registration of the crime, no device belonging to the suspect, one Mr. Aashay Harlalka, has been seized and no custodial interrogation has been conducted either the petitioner further alleges that MR. Aashay Harlalka has approached the Sessions Court seeking Anticipatory bail, which was rejected. Further more, the Whitefield CCPS has also reportedly not taken any steps to preserve the digital evidence Pertinent to the case. The petitioner also alleges that preferential treatment has been accorded to Mr. Aashay Harlalka as compared to another accused, Mr. Akshay Yelmelwar, who was arrested earlier and was reminded to Judicial custody for 30 days. It has been pointed out that Mr. Akshay Yelmelwar was only the executor of the crime, whereas Mr. Aashay Harlalka is the alleged master mind.” 21. As already noted, admittedly, there are several civil and criminal proceedings between the petitioner and other directors of the respondent No.2- defacto complainant company. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein is shareholder(33%) of the respondent No.2-defacto complainant and he has already approached National Company Law Tribunal, - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010235442026 NC: 2026:KHC:44507 CRL.P No. 5138 of 2026 Ahmedabad with regard to internal affairs of the company. The said matter is pending consideration. The respondent No.2-defacto complainant has initiated proceedings before the Commercial Court in Bengaluru under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, in Com.A.A.No. 162/2025, which is also pending consideration. 22. There is already a complaint filed by the respondent No.2-defacto complaint against the petitioner in Crime No.176/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 316, 318(4) and 319 (2) of BNS and Sections 65, 66 of IT Act and the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail on 11.07.2025. 23. Perusal of the aforesaid order indicate that in the complaint subject matter of Crime No.176/2025, allegation of petitioner herein committing offences in the nature of coding delete, data theft, code copy, intellectual property theft, cheating, criminal breach of trust have been made. The Court while granting the anticipatory bail has taken note of the fact that the petitioner had already returned the laptop of the complainant company receipt of which has been admitted. 24. The aforesaid facts indicate that the parties are at loggerhead for atleast over two years. As noted above, the present complaint at Annexure-B is not against the petitioner herein in its strict sense. Name of the petitioner is incidentally mentioned while the - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010235442026 NC: 2026:KHC:44507 CRL.P No. 5138 of 2026 complaint is directed against certain Akshay Yelmelwar. The apprehension of the petitioner under circumstances of he being arrested, more particularly, in view of the instructions given by the Director General of Police, Cyber Command as extracted hereinabove cannot be ruled out. 25. Perusal of the records indicate that petitioner herein and two others being close friends with the aid and assistance of their respective family members had conceived and incorporated respondent No.2-Company, which also appears to have achieved significant success. Dispute, disagreement and irreconcilable differences seem to have arose between the parties resulting in filing and counter filing of the civil and criminal cases. The allegations in the complaint needs to be viewed in this peculiar fact situation of the matter. In that light of the matter requirement of petitioner making out an ''exceptional circumstance'', ''rarest of rare case'' for grant of anticipatory bail as vehemently being insisted by learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Company would not arise. The seriousness of Cyber crimes and Cyber offences being repeatedly flagged by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Company, in the absence of any direct allegations made against the petitioner herein in the complaint at Annexure-B, loses its thrust which it would otherwise carry. Therefore, the precedents relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2-company are of no avail to facts and circumstances of the instant case. - 15 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010235442026 NC: 2026:KHC:44507 CRL.P No. 5138 of 2026 26. Petitioner has made out a case of his apprehension of imminent arrest by the respondent No.1-Police. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that the father of the petitioner is suffering from 4th stage of cancer. He submits that the offences alleged are neither punishable with death nor life imprisonment and that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In the circumstances of the matter, this Court deems it fit to allow the petition." 11. Even the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, which is impugned in this petition has been taken into consideration by the co-ordinate bench of this Court, while granting anticipatory bail to respondent No.2 herein in Crime No.502/2025 wherein, the allegations found against the accused is similar. 12. The judgments on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is trite that judgments can be relied upon as precedents only if the same could be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Since the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.5178/2026 has granted anticipatory bail to respondent - 16 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010235442026 NC: 2026:KHC:44507 CRL.P No. 5138 of 2026 No.2 herein in a case involving similar allegations, it cannot be said that learned Sessions Judge had erred in granting anticipatory bail to respondent No.2, more so, when the learned Sessions Judge has passed a well-reasoned order considering all the contentions raised by both parties. Therefore, I am of the opinion that this petition lacks merit and accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29