Satish vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Since the aforesaid two bail applications arise out of the same crime number, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.

These first anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been filed by the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.213/2022 registered at Police Station – Darri, District– Korba (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

As per the case of the prosecution, Arvind Singh Pawar lodged a written complaint at Police Station-Darri, District Korba that he is doing the business of Cable Television Network in the area of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh since 2011 and from 2014, a firm Vante Matram Cable Network has taken the lease from him and thereafter the persons, who are connected with Vande Matram Cable Network firm namely Jaipal Singh @ Vicky Gulati and others, have not produced proper account for running a business and showing loss, however, on verification, it has been found that the accused persons have run cable business by cloning the set-up boxes and Vande Matram Cable Network has also sent recovery notice to the complainant to the tune of Rs.8 lacs and Jaipal Singh Tulati has also extended life threat to the complainant. Based on such allegations, FIR has been registered for offence punishable under Section 420/34 of the IPC on 3rd August, 2022 against 15 persons.

Mr.Anil Gulati, learned counsel appearing for applicant-Satish in MCRCA No.1348/2022 and Mr.Pragalbh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for applicant-Rajiv Panjiyara in MCRCA No.1366/2022 submit that the present applicants are not partners of Vante Matram Cable Network firm. They further submit that there is dispute between Vante Matram Cable Network firm & the complainant and Vante Matram Cable Network firm has also sent recovery notice against the complainant and lodged a false complaint against the applicants and others accused persons. Mr.Anil Gulati, learned counsel for applicant-Satish, would submit that applicant-Satish is an employee of Vante Matram Cable Network firm. They lastly submit that there is special enactment i.e. The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 (for short ‘Act of 1995’) and no cognizance has been made without written complaint by any authorised officer as per Section 18 of the Act of 1995 and the authorised officers are defined in Section 2(a) of the Act of 1995, which are a District Magistrate, or a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, or a Commissioner of Police, and includes any other officer notified in the Official Gazette, by the Central Government or the State Government. So, considering all the aspects, the applicants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Per contra, Ms. Priyamvada Singh, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State and Mr.Vijay Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the objector, oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants. Ms. Priyamvada Singh submits that the present applicants along with other co-accused persons have made a racket and prepared clone set-up boxes and caused loss to the Government also. Therefore, learned counsel pray for dismissal of bail applications.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

Considering the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties, particularly considering that the special enactment has been promulgated namely The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, which specifically bars about the cognizance of offences unless a complaint is not made by any authorised officer and learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State fairly submits that no such complaint is available in case diary, further considering that recovery notice has been issued by Vante Matram Cable Network firm to the complainant to the tune of Rs.8 lacs and thereafter the complainant has lodged the present FIR and without any proper inquiry, FIR has been registered, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Applicants.

Accordingly, the bail applications filed by applicants-Satish and Rajiv Panjiyara are allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants, on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs 50,000/- with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

((a) they 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 fact to the Court.

(b) they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and

(c) they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

(d) the Applicants and the suretes shall submit a copy of their adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court.

(e) they shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar in nature.

(f) the applicants shall also furnish details of their movable and immovable properties held by them along with their dependent family members and shall not alienate the immovable property without written permission of the concerned trial Court.