Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 21074

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.G.S. Kamal, J
Aashay Harlalka – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
CRL.P No. 5178 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B.K. Sampath, Suraj S
For the Respondents: Pushpalatha B, Angad Kamath

Anticipatory bail may be granted in cyber-crime cases where the FIR contains no direct allegations against the petitioner, especially when the complaint appears to be a tool for coercion arising from protracted civil and corporate litigation.

Headnote:(A) Information Technology Act, 2000 - Sections 65 and 66 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 316, 318(4) and 319(2) - Anticipatory Bail - Requirement of 'exceptional circumstance' - Absence of direct allegations against petitioner in FIR - Parallel criminal and civil litigation between parties - Cyber crime allegations - Held, custodial interrogation not justified where complaint is primarily against third party and petitioner's involvement is collateral, especially in the context of ongoing commercial disputes. (Paras 24, 25)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a shareholder of the respondent company, sought anticipatory bail following the registration of FIR No. 502/2025 for alleged data theft and misuse. The complaint primarily targeted a former employee. The petitioner contended that the FIR was a coercive tactic arising from internal corporate disputes and existing litigation between him and the company.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that there were no direct allegations against the petitioner in the FIR, which targeted an ex-employee. Given the ongoing civil and commercial litigation, the Court inferred that the criminal proceedings were being used as a device for coercion. The Court held that the necessity for custodial interrogation is diminished when the petitioner is not the primary accused and multiple civil forums are already seized of the corporate dispute.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a cyber-crime case when the FIR names a third party, and whether custodial interrogation is warranted despite existing commercial litigation.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of direct allegations in the FIR and in light of the fact that the parties are embroiled in longstanding civil and commercial disputes, the requirement to establish a 'rarest of rare' case or 'exceptional circumstance' to grant anticipatory bail is diluted, and the protection from custodial arrest is justified.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. overview of fir and allegations involving data theft. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioner's contention regarding malicious prosecution and corporate civil disputes. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. respondent's state argument against bail citing complexity of cyber crimes. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. court finds fir lacks direct charges against petitioner amid civil litigation. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. final order granting anticipatory bail with conditions. (Para 26)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 (FILED U/S.482 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO A. ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE (WHITEFIELD CEN CRIME POLICE STATION) TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.502/2025 DATED 23.08.2025 (ANNEXURE A) REGISTERED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/US/ 65, 66 OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000 AND SEC.316, 318(4), 319(2) OF THE BNS BY IMPOSING ANY REASONABLE CONDITIONS AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

ORAL ORDER

1. This petition is filed seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.502/2025 registered on 23.08.2025 before the respondent No.1-Police for the offences punishable under Sections 65, 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as IT Act for short) and Sections 316 , 318(4) and 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as BNS for short).

2. That a complaint dated 19.08.2025 came to be filed by respondent No.2-defacto complainant, which is a company represented by its authorised representative, alleging inter-alia that one Akshay Yelmelwar, was an employee of the respondent No.2-company worked between 24.07.2023 and 06.06.2025. He had resigned from his employment effective from 07.03.2025, which was accepted. As per the exit obligation, said Akshay Yelmelwar was required to complete all project related documentation, transfer knowledge to the concerned team members and handover all the access credentials and official data in his possession. That the said Akshay Yelmelwar was part of MFT team and reported directly to Aashay Harlalka-petitioner herein and that he operated from the Corporate Office of the respondent No.2-company situated in Bengaluru. That Mr. Aashay Harlalka, the petitioner herein was previously terminated from the company effective from 24.03.2025. An FIR in this regard had been filed in Crime No.176/2025 against said Aashay Harlalka-petitioner herein. That there were instances of data theft and unauthorised deletion of the company's proprietary documents and critical data by Akshay Yelmelwar, which has caused operational and financial harm to the company, Akshay Yelmelwar was scheduled to work with the company until 06.06.2025. While narrating instances of deletion, inaccessibility and commission of alleged offences at paragraph Nos.2 to 6 of the complaint, at paragraph No.7 of the complaint it is alleged that the said Akshay Yelmelwar worked under Mr. Aashay Harlalka-petitioner herein on several projects and involved in conducting the research of sensitive and proprietary nature. That he had willfully deleted all such work data from the system prior to his exit from the company. Thus, alleging as above, intervention of the respondent No.1-Police has been sought by registering the FIR and investigating into the matter against said Akshay Yelmelwar. Accordingly, aforesaid case in Crime No.502/2025 came to be registered for the offences noted hereinabove.

3. In furtherance to registration of the aforesaid case in Crime No.502/2025, the Assistant Commissioner of Police of the respondent No.1 had issued a notice under Sub Section (3) of Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as BNSS) calling upon the petitioner herein to appear before the Investigation Officer at Whitefield Cyber Crime Police Sta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 21074

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAM.G.S. Kamal, JAashay Harlalka – AppellantVersusState of Karnataka – RespondentCRL.P No. 5178 of 2026

Anticipatory bail may be granted in cyber-crime cases where the FIR contains no direct allegations against the petitioner, especially when the complaint appears to be a tool for coercion arising from protracted civil and corporate litigation.

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.G.S. Kamal, J
Aashay Harlalka – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
CRL.P No. 5178 of 2026