In a significant judicial order delivered on April 6, 2024, the XLV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-46), Sri Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B., dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3062/2024. The court refused to grant pre-arrest bail protection to Mani Bharathi (Accused No. 1) and Smt. Anandi (Accused No. 3) in connection with Crime No. 28/2024 registered by the Byappanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioners face prosecution for serious cyber offences punishable under Sections 66 (computer related offences), 66C (identity theft), 66E (violation of privacy), and 67 (publishing obscene material in electronic form) of the Information Technology Act, 2008, along with Sections 354C (voyeurism) and 354D (stalking) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Matrix and Cyber Harassment Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a private complaint (PCR No. 4677/2023) filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate by Smt. S. Nalini, aged 35 years, wife of Accused No. 2. The learned Magistrate referred the matter under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Byappanahalli Police Station for investigation, resulting in the registration of Crime No. 28/2024.

According to the complainant:

• The marriage between Accused No. 2 and the complainant was solemnized on August 21, 2020. Since the marriage, Accused Nos. 1 to 3 subjected her to continuous physical and mental cruelty. In December 2022, they forcibly ousted her from the matrimonial home after taking her child (whom she recovered 15 days later).
• The mobile number used by the complainant (9632717010) was linked to the identity documents of Accused No. 2. Following marital disputes, Accused No. 2 obtained a duplicate SIM card and, in collusion with Accused No. 1 (sister-in-law) and Accused No. 3 (mother-in-law), illegally intercepted and compromised her digital accounts.
• While a separate matrimonial dowry harassment case was pending, the accused allegedly hacked her primary email account, Google Drive storage, Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp profiles. They also monitored the online activities of the complainant’s sister, physically stalked the complainant, and compromised her Jala account.
• The complainant further alleged that Accused No. 2 recorded photos and videos without her consent, using them to threaten and intimidate her, while Accused Nos. 1 and 3 actively aided him by disseminating her private personal data to defame her character among family and friends.

The details of the petitioners as per court records are:

• Mani Bharathi (Petitioner No. 1 / Accused No. 1): Sister-in-law, aged 31 years, daughter of T.N.T. Naveen.
• Smt. Anandi (Petitioner No. 2 / Accused No. 3): Mother-in-law, aged 54 years, wife of T.N.T. Naveen.
• Address: Both residing at No. 264, Near Grace and Truth Church, 6th Ward, Bommasandra, Bengaluru – 562125.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioners

Appearing on behalf of the applicants, learned advocate Sri/Smt. A.B. Narayanaswamy presented several grounds seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.:

• Claim of Innocence and False Implication: The petitioners maintained that they were entirely innocent of the alleged cyber offences and had been falsely implicated due to the ongoing matrimonial rift between the complainant and Accused No. 2.
• Non-Capital Offences: The defence emphasized that the offences alleged under the IT Act and IPC do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment and are triable by a Magistrate.
• Undertaking: The applicants assured the court of their willingness to abide by all imposed conditions, cooperate with the investigation, and offer solvent sureties.

Objections Raised by the Prosecution

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, submitting a detailed statement of objections along with the case diary:

• Prima Facie Case of Identity Theft and Privacy Violation: The prosecution submitted that case records and digital investigation logs established a clear prima facie case of unauthorized SIM duplication, cloud account hacking, and privacy invasion.
• Necessity for Custodial Interrogation: The Investigating Officer submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioners was essential to trace the hacked accounts, retrieve digital storage media, recover compromised data, and identify the electronic devices used.
• Apprehension of Witness Tampering and Continuous Harassment: The prosecution expressed serious concern that if enlarged on pre-arrest bail, the petitioners would continue to harass the complainant, delete electronic evidence, or intimidate prosecution witnesses.

Judicial Findings and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Sessions Court evaluated the private complaint, case diary entries, cyber hacking allegations, and rival submissions to determine Point No. 1: whether the petitioners made out sufficient grounds for anticipatory bail.

1. Severity of Cyber Offences and Personal Privacy Intrusion

Judge Manjunatha observed that the allegations detailed a coordinated effort by the husband and in-laws to compromise the complainant’s phone SIM, hack her cloud storage and social media accounts, and misuse private data to defame her publicly.

2. Imperative Need for Technical Interrogation and Data Recovery

The court emphasized that in cybercrime investigations involving account hijacking, cloud data theft, and electronic stalking, custodial interrogation is vital. Releasing the accused on pre-arrest bail during an active investigation would hamper police efforts to trace digital footprints and retrieve physical devices.

3. Protection of Women Against Cyber Stalking and Defamation

Considering the seriousness of hacking a woman’s personal data, tracking her physical movements, and threatening to circulate private media, the court held that public interest and thorough investigation outweighed the plea for pre-arrest liberty under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

It remains a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that an order deciding an anticipatory bail application is procedural in nature and does not constitute an expression on the ultimate guilt or innocence of the accused, which remains subject to trial.

Final Order

Answering Point No. 1 in the negative, XLV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Sri Manjunatha formally dismissed the anticipatory bail petition on April 6, 2024:

The bail petition filed by the petitioners, Mani Bharathi and Smt. Anandi, under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.