Anticipatory bail was denied due to serious allegations of corporate espionage, potential threats to national security, and the necessity for custodial interrogation to preserve evidence.

CAV ORDER

These petitions are filed by accused Nos.1 and 3 seeking anticipatory bail in Cr.No.1025/2024 registered at North East CEN Crime Police Station, for offences punishable under Section 66(B) , 66(C) of Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short ‘IT Act’) and under Section 318(2) (3) (4) of BNS, 2023.

2. Brief facts of the case are:

A complaint was lodged on 25.12.2024 by one Sameer Joshi, CEO of NewSpace Research and Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (for short ‘NRT’) alleging that accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3, who were former employees of complainant's company conspired to steal sensitive information for the benefit of their current employer, Lenviz Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (for short ‘Lenviz’). Accused No.1, who held the position of Vice President at the complainant's company, is accused of operating dishonestly as a Director of Lenviz, alongwith his wife, accused No.4. Both accused Nos.1 and 4, shareholders in Lenviz, alleged to have retained confidential information obtained during their employment at the complainant's company. Further, accused No.1, purportedly orchestrated the theft of confidential data, including source codes, CAD designs, copyrighted information, project files and other proprietary information. It is alleged that accused No.1 utilized this stolen data to place a competing bid on behalf of Lenviz for the Meher Baba Swarm Drone Competition-II, thus causing irreparable loss and damage to the complainant's company. 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”. It is alleged that accused Nos.2 and 3 illegally hacked, copied, and shared highly sensitive information including source codes and original designs, with Lenviz. The said accused conspired to erase the evidence related to the crime. The stolen information was allegedly used by Lenviz to develop similar products to those of the complainant's company and to secure defense contracts, causing significant harm to the complainant's business.

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 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 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.

iii. Investigation would not be hindered by the grant of anticipatory bail. Existence of a civil suit with identical statements as in the complaint, filed much earlier, and the extreme delay in filing the complaint after the alleged