Sri. Pavan G Vs State by Cyber Crime Police Station

SRI PAVAN G AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O K.S. GUNDAPPA SHETTY R/AT NO.106, KRISHNA NAGAKANYA, TEMPLE ROAD OPP. UTTARAHALLI LAKE UTTARAHALLI, BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU - 560 061.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI MUNISWAMY GOWDA S.G, ADV.) AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NANDINI MS Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE BY CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION CID SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 (FILED U/S.482 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO DIRECT THE CID, CYBER CRIME POLICE, TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.5/2023 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 419,420 OF IPC AND SEC.66(C),66(D) OF IT ACT 2008 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CJM AT BENGALURU CITY.

¶17

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

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:12042 CRL.P No. 3395 of 2025

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner who is apprehending arrest in Crime

¶23

No.5/2023 registered by Cyber Crime Police Station, CID, Bengaluru for the offences punishable Sections 419 & 420 of IPC and Sections 66(C) & 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2008, is before this Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.,.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

FIR in Crime No.5/2023 was registered by

¶26

Cyber Crime Police Station, CID, Bengaluru for the aforesaid offences against one Surjeet and others on the basis of first information dated 16.05.2023 received from

¶27

Sri Bharatesh N D S/o D N Devakumar. Apprehending arrest in the said case, the petitioner had filed Crl.Misc.No.1318/2025 before the jurisdictional Sessions Court, which was rejected on 04.03.2025. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:12042 CRL.P No. 3395 of 2025

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that the petitioner has not received any amount in his bank account. The amount was received in the bank account of the petitioner's employee, who has been granted anticipatory bail by the jurisdictional sessions Court. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents and he is ready and willing to cooperate with the Investigation Officer for the purpose of investigation. Therefore, he prays to allow the petition.

¶31

Per contra, the learned HCGP has opposed the bail application. She submits that in spite of repeated enquiry notice, the petitioner has failed to cooperate with the police for the purpose of investigation. Considering the nature of allegation and gravity of offence, the petitioner's custodial interrogation becomes necessary. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition.

¶32

Perusal of the FIR in the present case would go to show that, the petitioner's name is not found in the FIR,

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12042 CRL.P No. 3395 of 2025

¶34

which is registered in the year 2023. During the course of investigation it appears that enquiry notice was issued to the petitioner on 28.01.2025. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not received any amount in his bank account and the amount was received in the bank account of Smt. Sunitha, who is said to be an employee of the petitioner. According to the petitioner he had sold certain commodities to one Nazeer in Dubai and towards payment of the amount of the said commodities, Nazeer had deposited certain money. It is only at the request of the said Nazeer, bank account particulars of the employee was given since he had insisted that money would be deposited to the bank account of the individuals.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶36

the petitioner has no other criminal antecedents and he is ready and willing to cooperate with the police for the purpose of investigation. The material on record would go to show that, Smt. Sunitha to whose account money was

¶37

5 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:12042 CRL.P No. 3395 of 2025

¶39

transferred has been granted anticipatory bail in the present case.

¶40

Considering the nature of allegation found against the petitioner and his employee and also since the petitioner has no other criminal antecedents, I am of the opinion that the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail can be granted reserving liberty to the Investigation Officer to file necessary application before the jurisdictional Court seeking custody of the petitioner for the purpose of interrogation, if necessary.

¶41

Accordingly, the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶44

The respondent - Police or any other police in the State of Karnataka are directed to release the petitioner in the event of his arrest in Crime No.5/2023 registered by

¶45

Cyber Crime Police Station, CID, Bengaluru for the offences punishable Sections 419 & 420 of IPC and

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:12042 CRL.P No. 3395 of 2025

¶48

Sections 66(C) & 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2008 subject to the following conditions:

¶49

The petitioner shall appear before

¶50

the Investigating Officer in the present case on 01.04.2025 at 10.00 a.m, and on the said date, if necessary, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to take the petitioner into custody for the purpose of interrogation. However, it is made clear that the Investigating Officer shall release the petitioner on the very same date on or before 6.00 p.m, subject to the petitioner executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.

¶51

The petitioner shall regularly appear before the Trial Court without fail unless exempted by the Trial Court for valid reasons.

¶52

The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witness and he shall co-operate with the Police for investigation and appear before them whenever called upon.

¶53

7 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:12042 CRL.P No. 3395 of 2025

¶55

The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future.

¶56

Sd /- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶57

NMS

Sri. Pavan G v. State by Cyber Crime Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Pavan G v. State by Cyber Crime Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod B R., Vs the State of Karnataka

Aproj Alias Gandhi Alias Afroz Ulla Shariff Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Venkat. R. S. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Rushabh Shramik Mastrulal Vs State by Intelligance Officer

Sri Mohan a @ Annamma Mohan Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Niaz Vs the State of Karnataka