Dismissed

Mr. Mahipal Singh Bochalyo v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Feb 2026CRL.P/17028/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail in a fraud case involving Section 438 CrPC. The court ruled the petitioner needed custodial interrogation as an active company director despite his lower shareholding, contrary to a claim of parity with another director granted bail.

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed due to lack of grounds, and the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation.

Mr. Mahipal Singh Bochalyo Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:10492 CRL.P No. 17028 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 17028 OF 2025 (438(Cr.PC) / 482(BNSS))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. MAHIPAL SINGH BOCHALYO S/O SAGARMAL VIKRAM SINGH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS No.2614, 27^TH MAIN, HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU CITY-560 102.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI RAKSHITH R, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE HSR LAYOUT POLICE STATION HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU-560102. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY POLICE INSPECTOR, CEN CRIME POLICE STATION SOUTH EAST DIVISION BANGALORE CITY-560 102.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M M, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:10492 CRL.P No. 17028 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 Cr.P.C. (FILED UNDER SECTION 482 BNSS) PRAYING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER IN THE EVENT OF ARREST IN CR.No.384/2025 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 66C, 66D, 84B OF THE I.T ACT AND SECTION 318(4),319,61(2) R/W 3(5) OF BNS 2023 ON THE COURT OF THE 39^TH A.C.J.M AT BENGALURU.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed by accused No. 19 under

¶25

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Praying to grant anticipatory bail in crime No. 384/2025 of HSR Layout Police Station registered for offence under Sections 66-C, 66-D, 84-B of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 318(4), 319, 111(2), 114(2), 61(2) read with Section 3(5) of BNS.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent – State.

¶27

Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that petitioner and accused No. 18 started the Company. Subsequently, accused No. 18 resigned from the directorship and accused No. 20 joined as the Director.

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:10492 CRL.P No. 17028 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

After accused No. 20 joined as the Director, he purchased shares of this petitioner and also of accused No. 18 and now accused No. 20 is having 80% of the shares and the petitioner is having 20% of shares. As major shares are with accused No. 20, he will be incharge of affairs of the Company. Accused No. 20 who has been added as Director of the Company has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. The offence alleged against the petitioner is provided with punishment of imprisonment which may extend to 7 years. The victims are not traced. There is no money transfer. Bank account of accused No. 18 has been secured. Statement of C.W.28 and another has already been recorded. Accused No. 2 has recruited the employees and accused No. 2 is stated to be Office Boy. Rental agreement has been signed by accused No. 20 and that itself indicates that he is incharge of the business of the Company. There is no abnormal transfer. Petitioner is ready to cooperate with the Investigating Officer in the

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:10492 CRL.P No. 17028 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

enquiry and abide by any conditions to be imposed by this

¶35

Court. With this he prayed to allow the petition.

¶36

Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that

¶37

the petitioner is one among the two Directors. Petitioner was the Director as on the date of alleged offence. Petitioner and other accused created fake KYC at the time of opening the Company. Huge amount is involved and victims are in the US and Canada and they have to be identified. Laptop etc., have been seized and sent to FSL. Insptie of notice petitioner has not appeared before the Investigating Officer for investigation. Petitioner is a resident of Rajasthan and Police went to Rajasthan, but, petitioner could not be secured. Petitioner and other accused have used many bank accounts and they have opened lot of call centers, details of which are required to investigated. Rent amount has been paid by using different accounts. I-cloud details have to be obtained from the petitioner as he is one of the Directors.

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:10492 CRL.P No. 17028 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Therefore, petitioner is required for custodial interrogation.

¶41

With this she prayed to reject the petition.

¶42

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court has perused the chargesheet and other materials placed on record.

¶43

Learned counsel for petitioner contended that accused No. 20 who is one of the Directors has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court by order dated 17.12.2025 passed in Crl.P. No. 15649/2025 and connected matters and therefore, petitioner is also entitled for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. At the time of considering the anticipatory bail petition of accused No. 20, neither learned counsel for petitioner nor the Additional SPP had brought to the notice of this Court that accused No. 20 was the Director of the Company. Suppressing the fact that accused No.20 was the Director of the Company said petition had been filed. Said petition was considered only on the ground that accused No. 20 was doing catering business and he was supplying food to

¶44

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:10492 CRL.P No. 17028 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

the accused persons at their office and residence. As the said petition was filed and considered suppressing the fact that accused No. 20 was the Director of the Company, State is at liberty to seek cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to accused No. 20. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground of parity.

¶47

This Court in the order dated 17.12.2025

¶48

passed in Crl.P. No. 15649/2025 and connected matters has observed as under:

¶49

“ 10. On the complaint of PSI, HSR Layout Police Station dated 07.10.2025, case came to be registered in Crime No.384/2025 for offences punishable under Sections 66(C), 66(D), 84(B) of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 61(2), 318(4), 319, read with Section 3(5) of BNS against Cybits Solution Private Limited and others. During investigation some of the accused persons have been arrested. During investigation, requisition has been filed to insert Sections 111(2) and 111(4) of BNS.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:10492 CRL.P No. 17028 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

11. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed against accused Nos. 1 to 34 for offences punishable under Sections 66(C), 66(D), 84(B) of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 61(2), 318(4), 319, read with Section 3(5) of BNS. The charge sheet has not been filed for offences punishable under Sections 111(2) and 111(4) of BNS, as accused persons are not involved in more than one crimes during last 10 years. Accused No.2 is working as Office Boy maintaining attendance records of employees of accused No.1 -Company. Accused No.4 is working as Closure. Accused Nos.3, 5, 6 to 17 are working as Dialers/Closures in accused No.1 -Company. Accused Nos.2 to 17 are the employees of accused No.1 -Company. The allegation against accused No.1 -Company and it’s employees i.e., accused Nos.2 to 17 is that they are making calls to the citizens of US and Canada stating that they are the US Customs and Border Protection Force, Drug Enforcement and Administration and Department of Homeland Security and used to get the details of the said victims, their passport, bank accounts, driving license and threatening them stating that they

¶54

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:10492 CRL.P No. 17028 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

are involved in commission of offence and getting money transferred from them to different accounts and keeping them in digital arrest and in order to get money from them asking them to purchase gift card of Walmart, Target, Walgreens, CVS, Dollar General, HEB Store and sending Bitcoin QR Code and asking them to transfer money. Accused persons were acting as Investigating Officers of United States and creating arrest warrant of United State Supreme Court and United State District Court. Employees of accused No.1 -Company used to make calls to citizens of US and Canada in that regard.”

¶57

Petitioner is one of the Directors since the registration of the Company and till today he is continuing as the Director of the Company. The Company has recruited several employees and they have been trained and used for commission of the offence. Merely because petitioner is stated to have 20% of the shares in the Company is not a ground to say that he is not actively involved in the business of the Company. Even though chargesheet is filed, investigation is in progress.

¶58

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:10492 CRL.P No. 17028 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Investigating agency has to ascertain the role of other accused persons including the petitioner and identify the victims. As the laptop, computer systems have seen seized and sent for FSL and I-cloud details are required to be obtained from the accused persons, petitioner is required

¶61

for custodial interrogation.

¶62

Considering the above aspects petitioner has

¶63

not made out any grounds for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶64

In the result, petition is dismissed.

¶65

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶66

LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31 Ct.sm

Mr. Mahipal Singh Bochalyo v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Mahipal Singh Bochalyo v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Safwan Subhan Vs the State

Sri. N G Umesh Vs State of Karnataka

Ramkaran @ Sonu Vs the State of Karnataka by

Mallikarjuna. R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Gangarevanna Vs State by

Sreedhara @ Gombe Vs State by Koratagere Ps