Safiya Malik

The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna allowed a writ petition directing the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to reinvestigate Crime No.1025 of 2024 registered under provisions of the Information Technology Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The Court ordered that the investigation be headed by a senior police officer of unimpeachable integrity and supported by officers experienced in digital forensics. The State Government was instructed to hand over the case files to the SIT and ensure that the investigation is completed within three months. Directions were also issued for the establishment and operationalization of a Cyber Crime Investigation Bureau to combat new-age cyber crimes.

The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, registered a complaint on 24 December 2024 alleging theft of sensitive proprietary data by its former employees. The complaint resulted in the registration of Crime No.1025 of 2024 at the North-East CEN Crime Police Station, Bengaluru City. The FIR invoked Sections 66, 66(B), and 66(C) of the Information Technology Act, along with Sections 318(2), 318(3), and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Also Read: "Refusing to Condon Delay Can Result in Injustice": Supreme Court Remands Land Acquisition Appeals for Fresh Consideration Without Interest for Delay Period

According to the petitioner, despite serious allegations involving national defense technologies and the theft of UAV source codes, CAD designs, and sensitive project files, the accused were not taken into custody for nearly 90 days after registration of the crime. Although two Courts—the Court of Sessions and a Coordinate Bench of the High Court—had rejected the anticipatory bail pleas of the accused, effective custodial interrogation did not take place.

The petitioner alleged that an arrest memo was drawn on 25 December 2024, but the arrested accused were let off the next day upon issuance of a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. It was contended that once an arrest had been effectuated, the issuance of a notice under Section 35 was improper, raising doubts about the integrity of the investigation.

The Court Commissioner appointed to assist in executing search and seizure operations reported interference and threats allegedly made by individuals posing as police officials, further complicating the investigation process. The Commissioner's report detailed obstructions at multiple premises associated with the accused and described efforts to prevent access to critical evidence.

The petitioner contended that given the nature of the allegations and the emerging threat of cyber espionage, a conventional investigation would be insufficient. The petitioner requested that the Court direct the formation of a SIT comprising officers with technical expertise in cyber forensics to ensure a fair, effective, and timely investigation.

The State initially resisted the prayer, arguing that a new Investigating Officer had already been appointed and that progress had been made. However, the State admitted that the previous Investigating Officer had been suspended due to allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The State left the matter to the Court’s discretion without contesting the need for a specialized investigative approach.

The Court observed that "the crimes over the years have emerged in different hues and forms. In this digital age where crime knows no borders and malfeasance is coded with keystrokes, the tools of conduct of investigation of such emerging crimes must evolve."

It was recorded that "an ordinary Investigating Officer or a conventional Investigating Officer would not be so equipped with such emerging crimes to decode the labyrinth of cyber crimes."

The Court further stated, "the subject crime has the colour of a cyber espionage. It is a multi-layered crime involving nuances of defence technology and concerns of national defence."

Justice Nagaprasanna recorded that "investigations into such crimes demand not merely procedural competence, but an amalgamation of technical expertise and forensic acumen."

The Court noted that "investigation of crimes of such magnitude cannot be done by the Investigating Officer who is now appointed, due to lack of technical expertise."

It was observed that "this Court, not only finds it appropriate but imperative to constitute a Special Investigation Team, as scales of justice must not tilt due to incompetence of Investigating Officers."

Further, the judgment stated, "if the crimes are sophisticated, the Investigating Officers too shall be."

The Court noted that "it is in public domain that the rate of filing of charge sheets in new age crimes is only at 9%, not because the accused are not guilty, but because the Investigating Officers are not equipped to bring those accused to books."

Justice Nagaprasanna recorded, "the State shall endeavour to give life to the cyber command centres or constitute a separate wing to tackle cyber crime like the CCB, which could be a cyber crime investigation bureau."

The Court recorded that "the aforesaid direction should not remain only on paper or become a paper direction."

Accordingly, it was observed that "thus, it would not be appropriate to close the present proceeding, but instead a concept of continuing mandamus would be necessary."

The Court allowed the writ petition and directed that Crime No.1025 of 2024 be reinvestigated by a Special Investigation Team comprising Sri Pranab Mohanty, IPS, Director General of Police, who would head the Team, along with Sri Bhushan Gulab Rao Borase, IPS, and Smt. Nisha James, IPS.

A mandamus was issued to the State Government, represented by the first respondent, to forthwith hand over the investigation to the constituted Special Investigation Team.

It was further directed that the Investigating Officer transmit the entire papers of investigation, if any, conducted thus far, to the said Special Investigation Team.

The Court instructed that the Special Investigation Team shall submit its report within three months from the date of its constitution, and a copy of the report be placed before the Court thereafter.

Also Read: Madras High Court: Surrogacy Guidelines Uphold Spirit of the Act I Certificates Must Be Issued Locally to Prevent Misuse

The judgment also mandated that a copy of the order be furnished to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka; the Principal Secretary, Department of Home Affairs; and the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Government of Karnataka, for the purpose of implementing paragraph 13 of the order.

 It was further directed that the steps taken towards the implementation of the directions in paragraph 13 shall, from time to time, be placed before the Court. Finally, the matter was directed to be listed for further hearing on 2 July 2025 at 2:30 p.m.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Sri Angad Kamath, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri Rahul Cariappa K. S., Additional Government Advocate

Case Title: NewSpace Research and Technologies Private Limited v. State of Karnataka and Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No.8403 of 2025
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna

[Read/Download order]