Argha Bhattacharya (In J/C) vs The State

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

CRL M A 370/2005

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

BAIL APPLN 62/2005

This matter was taken up for disposal straightway as advance notice has been served on the learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has been in custody since 10.12.2004 in connection with FIR No. 155/2004 registered under Sections 379/420/468 of IPC and Sections 4/20/25 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The FIR has been registered at Police Station Special Cell Lodi Road. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was running an illegal telephone exchange at G-28, Nehru Place. The modus operandi of the petitioner, as per the case of the prosecution, was that international incoming calls used to come to the petitioner''s telephone exchange over the internet known as VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol). This was then routed through the router installed in the petitioner''s office to the local exchange/local recepients of the calls.

The case for the prosecution is that through this method, the Government has been deprived of the revenue, which, it would have otherwise got had the international calls come through normal channel over the telegraph lines. The case essentially argued was that of cheating.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, argued that even if the allegations are taken to be correct, the offence of cheating is not made out at all. According to him, the case for the prosecution is that the Government has been duped of its revenue, whereas Section 415, which defines cheating, provides that the person must have been induced or deceived to part with certain properties. There is not a whisper of any allegation that the Government has been induced or deceived by the petitioner and as such the offence of cheating is not made out. He further submits that the amount involved is Rs. 5,630/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that in any event his equipment has been seized and that he shall not indulge in such activities in future.

Looking at the totality of the circumstances, I feel that this is a fit case in which bail ought to be granted. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court. The application is disposed of.

dusty.