The court established that police officers facing serious allegations of misconduct, particularly involving evidence tampering and facilitating illegal activities, do not have a right to anticipatory bail due to the potential for further obstruction of justice.

ORDER

Rajendra Badamikar, J.

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. 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 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 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 involveme