Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru dismissed two connected criminal petitions seeking anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, read with Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitions related to allegations of unauthorised access and misappropriation of proprietary data belonging to a Bengaluru-based aerospace and defence research firm. The Single Bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz recorded that “granting anticipatory bail could jeopardize investigation and may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and collecting useful information and may weaken the ability of law enforcement agencies to combat sophisticated cyber crimes.”

The Court recorded that “the petitioners continued to access, retain and use proprietary information even after their resignation and demonstrates a deliberate attempt to misappropriate data for unlawful benefits, constituting a prima facie case.” Based on this assessment, the Court rejected the petitioners’ request for anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 1025/2024 registered at CEN Police Station, North-East Division, Bengaluru, for offences under Sections 66, 66(B), and 66(C) of the Information Technology Act, 2008 and Sections 318(2), 318(3), and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Also Read: “Intention to Kill Was Present; Delay in Statements, When Explained, Will Not Aid the Accused”: Supreme Court upholds Life Sentence for Murder

The criminal petitions, filed by Prabhat Sharma and Akash M. Patil, arose from an investigation initiated on the basis of a complaint lodged on 25 December 2024 by Sameer Joshi, Chief Executive Officer of NewSpace Research and Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (NRT), a company engaged in aerospace and defence research. The complaint alleged that the petitioners, along with other co-accused, who were former employees of the complainant company, had conspired to misappropriate confidential information for the benefit of their new employer, Lenviz Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

The complaint stated that Prabhat Sharma, Accused No.1, had served as Vice President at NRT, and during his tenure, had access to confidential technical material. The complaint further alleged that Sharma simultaneously held the position of Director at Lenviz, a direct competitor, without disclosure to NRT. His wife, referred to as Accused No.4, was also a shareholder in Lenviz. The complaint alleged that the accused persons retained proprietary data, including source codes, CAD designs, copyrighted materials, project files, and flight controller parameters, after leaving the company.

It was further stated that an internal audit conducted by NRT following the resignation of Akash M. Patil (Accused No.3) and another co-accused revealed a separate workspace on Autodesk Fusion 360 labeled “Lenviz Tech.” The audit allegedly confirmed that sensitive information, including project designs and technical data, had been accessed and used for the benefit of Lenviz. The complaint claimed that such use allowed Lenviz to develop products similar to those of NRT and to submit a bid for the Meher Baba Swarm Drone Competition-II. According to the complainant, this caused substantial commercial and reputational damage.

The petitioners had previously sought anticipatory bail before the LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Their applications in Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 11937/2024 and 11938/2024 were dismissed on 13 January 2025. The trial court recorded that the petitioners were alleged to have been involved in activities concerning sensitive national defence data. It was noted in that order that “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.”

Before the High Court, the petitioners, represented by counsel, submitted that the First Information Report did not contain specific allegations against them and that there was no prima facie evidence supporting the claims of data theft. It was submitted that the complaint lacked material showing that the petitioners had violated any provision of law, particularly with regard to national security, and no charge under Section 66(F) of the IT Act had been invoked. It was also argued that the existence of a civil suit with similar claims, filed prior to the criminal complaint, coupled with a delay in filing the FIR, raised questions about the bona fides of the proceedings.

The petitioners further stated that the seizure of devices had already occurred, rendering custodial interrogation unnecessary. They maintained that they had cooperated with the investigation by appearing before the Investigating Officer and submitting their devices. It was asserted that no incriminating materials had been recovered, no charge sheet had been filed, and there was no risk of tampering with evidence, since all relevant materials were already in police custody.

The State, represented by the Additional Special Public Prosecutor, opposed the petitions. It was submitted that forensic analysis indicated the misappropriation of sensitive data, including flight controller parameters and source codes, by the accused, who then used this information to create competing products. The State also submitted that Prabhat Sharma had submitted an unauthorised bid for a defence-related project using data stolen from NRT, constituting an act of corporate misconduct and breach of trust.

The prosecution asserted that Sharma’s non-compliance with a notice under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code, dated 27 December 2024, showed a lack of cooperation. It was submitted that “deliberate non-compliance with the said notice by the said petitioner exhibits lack of cooperation with the investigation and constitutes a direct affront to the due process of law.”

The State submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners was necessary for decrypting and accessing data believed to be stored in cloud-based environments. It was stated that access to such data was essential to determine the full extent of the alleged conspiracy and its beneficiaries.

The defacto complainant, through counsel, also opposed the petitions. It was stated that NRT’s clientele included the Indian Army, Air Force, Navy, BEL, Hindustan Aeronautics, and DRDO, and the company’s operations were governed by strict confidentiality obligations. It was alleged that Prabhat Sharma, while holding a key position at NRT, concealed his role in Lenviz and used confidential information to advance the interests of that entity. The complainant alleged that internal audits and forensic investigations indicated systematic data theft involving other accused persons.

The complainant submitted that “petitioners still have access to stolen confidential data and given their financial resources and business connections, there is a high flight risk and possibility of tampering with electronic evidence that is yet to be fully recovered and analyzed.” It was argued that granting anticipatory bail would undermine the investigation, including efforts to recover encrypted digital evidence.

Justice Mohammad Nawaz considered the contentions of both parties. The Court referred to the nature of the complaint, the materials placed on record, and the seriousness of the allegations. The Court recorded that “it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case against the petitioners.”

The Court observed that granting anticipatory bail at this stage could obstruct the collection of critical digital evidence. The judgment noted that “custodial interrogation is necessary, due to the technical nature of the crime and to reveal full extent of data theft and its concealment methods.” The Court further recorded that “the petitioners' actions show their ability and willingness to destroy and tamper with evidence.”

Referring to the petitioners’ continued access to the data in question, the Court observed that “preliminary findings would establish that the petitioners continued to access, retain and use proprietary information even after their resignation and demonstrates a deliberate attempt to misappropriate data for unlawful benefits, constituting a prima facie case.”

Also Read: “Statements Are Hypothetical and Without Any Evidence”: Madras High Court Rejects Ex-Serviceman’s Plea on Havana Syndrome and AI Law

Justice Nawaz also addressed the broader implications of granting anticipatory bail in such cases, recording that “granting pre-arrest bail can significantly hamper the investigation, particularly in collecting useful information and uncovering concealed materials.”

In the concluding portion of the order, the Court stated: “For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail. Petitions are dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Sri Sundara Raman M.V., Advocate

For the Respondent-State: Ms. Asma Kouser, Additional Special Public Prosecutor

For the Defacto Complainant: Sri Angad Kamath, Advocate, Ms. Sloka B., Advocate and Sri Suyog Sathya, Advocate.

Case Title: Prabhat Sharma v. State of Karnataka & Akash M. Patil v. State of Karnataka
Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:11059
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 695 of 2025 C/W Criminal Petition No. 698 of 2025
Bench: Justice Mohammad Nawaz

[Read/Download order]