The court emphasized the necessity of a Special Investigation Team for complex cyber crimes to ensure a fair and competent investigation, particularly those involving national security.

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 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.

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 N