Allahabad High Court

1. Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Suchita Mehrotra and Sri Saushthav Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Alok Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 498 of 2025, under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 306, 61(2), 317(2) of B.N.S. and Section 43, 66B, 66C, 72 of I.T. Act and Section 3/5 of Official Secrets Act, 1923, Police Station- Phase-II, District- Gautam Budh Nagar during the pendency of the trial.

3. As per the prosecution story, the present applicant being the employee of the first informant after resigning joined another company Optiemus Unmanned Systems Limited and while leaving the company of the first informant he also stolen some UAV software source code and shared the same with new employer which were also used by them in manufacturing their UAV. During investigation, the police has arrested the applicant and from his laptop, source code used in the Ground Control Software for UAV and Flight Controller, source code for Precision Landing and source code for Terrain Avoidance was recovered.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant 2 BAIL No. 41014 of 2025 being the employee of the first informant the source code mentioned in the FIR was also available with him and he never shared that source code with his new employer and it is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that while arresting the applicant ground of arrest as required by the Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269 as well as in the case of Kasireddy Upender Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228, was not supplied. The police simply supplied arrest memo which does not contain the ground of arrest as required by the Apex Court in the case of Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra) and should be similar to the charge framed by the Court for the trial in a case.

5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that charge sheet has been filed by the police and concerned Court has also taken cognizance not only under Section 316(2), 318(4), 306, 61(2), 317(2) but also under Section 3/5 of Official Secrets Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1923"), though as per Section 13(3) of Official Secrets Act, the Court cannot take cognizance for the offene under the Act, 1923 except on a complaint filed by the appropriate authority.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the source codes which have been stolen by the applicant from the company of the first informant come in a prohibited category by the Ministry of Defence and the same would come within the purview of the Act, 1923 and source code was also recovered from the laptop of the applicant and as on date the forensic report regarding the laptop and mobile is awaited. However, he could not dispute the fact that the Magistrate cannot take cognizance on the charge sheet for the offence under the Act, 1923 except on a complaint in view of bar of Section 13(3) of Act, 1923. However, he further submitted that the limitation period is still not expired for filing the complaint by the appropriate authority on the basis of charge sheet filed by the police under the Act, 1923. 3 BAIL No. 41014 of 2025

7. Considering the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is not disputed that the applicant was an employee of the first informant's company and the dispute was that he had stolen source codes of certain softwares used in UAV and forensic report regarding the source code recovered from the laptop and mobile of the applicant is still awaited, and further considering the fact that the Magistrate has erroneously taken cognizance on the charge sheet filed under Section 3/5 of the Act, 1923, though the same is barred by Section 13(3) of the Act, 1923 and coupled with the fact that the arrest memo does not show the ground of arrest has been mentioned in the form of charges as required by the Apex Court in Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra). This Court is inclined to release the applicant on interim bail till the next date of listing.

8. In view of above, let the applicant- Akshay Mahla involved in the aforementioned crime be released on interim bail, till next date of listing, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions; i. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. ii. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without seeking any adjournment. iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. iv. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed by him.

9. Put up this case as fresh on 19th January, 2026 along with the report of Forensic Science Laboratory. 4 BAIL No. 41014 of 2025

10. It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on interim bail on the basis of downloaded copy of this order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel with the undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.

11. It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to ensure early release of the applicant. December 18, 2025 SA (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)

1. Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Suchita Mehrotra and Sri Saushthav Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Alok Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 498 of 2025, under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 306, 61(2), 317(2) of B.N.S. and Section 43, 66B, 66C, 72 of I.T. Act and Section 3/5 of Official Secrets Act, 1923, Police Station- Phase-II, District- Gautam Budh Nagar during the pendency of the trial.

3. As per the prosecution story, the present applicant being the employee of the first informant after resigning joined another company Optiemus Unmanned Systems Limited and while leaving the company of the first informant he also stolen some UAV software source code and shared the same with new employer which were also used by them in manufacturing their UAV. During investigation, the police has arrested the applicant and from his laptop, source code used in the Ground Control Software for UAV and Flight Controller, source code for Precision Landing and source code for Terrain Avoidance was recovered.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant 2 BAIL No. 41014 of 2025 being the employee of the first informant the source code mentioned in the FIR was also available with him and he never shared that source code with his new employer and it is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that while arresting the applicant ground of arrest as required by the Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269 as well as in the case of Kasireddy Upender Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228, was not supplied. The police simply supplied arrest memo which does not contain the ground of arrest as required by the Apex Court in the case of Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra) and should be similar to the charge framed by the Court for the trial in a case.

5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that charge sheet has been filed by the police and concerned Court has also taken cognizance not only under Section 316(2), 318(4), 306, 61(2), 317(2) but also under Section 3/5 of Official Secrets Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1923"), though as per Section 13(3) of Official Secrets Act, the Court cannot take cognizance for the offene under the Act, 1923 except on a complaint filed by the appropriate authority.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the source codes which have been stolen by the applicant from the company of the first informant come in a prohibited category by the Ministry of Defence and the same would come within the purview of the Act, 1923 and source code was also recovered from the laptop of the applicant and as on date the forensic report regarding the laptop and mobile is awaited. However, he could not dispute the fact that the Magistrate cannot take cognizance on the charge sheet for the offence under the Act, 1923 except on a complaint in view of bar of Section 13(3) of Act, 1923. However, he further submitted that the limitation period is still not expired for filing the complaint by the appropriate authority on the basis of charge sheet filed by the police under the Act, 1923. 3 BAIL No. 41014 of 2025

7. Considering the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is not disputed that the applicant was an employee of the first informant's company and the dispute was that he had stolen source codes of certain softwares used in UAV and forensic report regarding the source code recovered from the laptop and mobile of the applicant is still awaited, and further considering the fact that the Magistrate has erroneously taken cognizance on the charge sheet filed under Section 3/5 of the Act, 1923, though the same is barred by Section 13(3) of the Act, 1923 and coupled with the fact that the arrest memo does not show the ground of arrest has been mentioned in the form of charges as required by the Apex Court in Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra). This Court is inclined to release the applicant on interim bail till the next date of listing.

8. In view of above, let the applicant- Akshay Mahla involved in the aforementioned crime be released on interim bail, till next date of listing, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions; i. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. ii. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without seeking any adjournment. iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. iv. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed by him.

9. Put up this case as fresh on 19th January, 2026 along with the report of Forensic Science Laboratory. 4 BAIL No. 41014 of 2025

10. It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on interim bail on the basis of downloaded copy of this order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel with the undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.

11. It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to ensure early release of the applicant. December 18, 2025 SA (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)