Milind Dayaram Kapase And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra
Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1037 OF 2017 1.
Milind Dayaram Kapase .Applicants 2.
Smt.R.V.Jailaxmi Girish Murti 3.
Smt.Smita Gurudatta Kasture Vs.
The State of Maharashtra .Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.565 OF 2017 (For Intervention) IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1037 OF 2017 Siddharth Atmaram Kapse .Intervenor
IN THE MATTER OF
1.
Milind Dayaram Kapase .Applicants 2.
Smt.R.V.Jailaxmi Girish Murti 3.
Smt.Smita Gurudatta Kasture Vs.
The State of Maharashtra .Respondent Mr.Y.P.Narvankar, Advocate, for the Applicants Mr.S.S.Hulke, APP, for the Respondent - State Mr.A.U.Nikam i/b. Mr.A.Satpute, Advocate, for the Intervenor
CORAM
:
REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
DATE :
04.07.2017
P.C.
.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2.
By this Application, the Applicants seek pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R.No.I-167 of 2017 registered with the Mumbai Naka Police Station, Nashik, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 63, 69, 37 and 51 of the Copyright Act. 3.
Learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that the allegations as against the Applicants are baseless and that there is no material to connect the Applicants with the alleged offence. He submits that the Applicants are Local Cable Operators (LCO) and are engaged in the business of Cable Television. He submits that the Applicants provide cable network services to customers, within Nashik District. He submitted that the principal allegation as
against the Applicants is, that they collected subscription charges from individual customers and did not forward the same to the Complainant; and that the Set Top Boxes which were handed over by the Complainant - Company, were being used to transmit signals of other Companies. He submits that there are five civil proceedings pending between the parties with respect to the same subject matter. He submits that hence, the custody of the Applicants is not required.
4.
Learned APP opposes the Application.
Learned counsel for the Intervenor also supports the learned APP. Learned counsel for the Intervenor, however, does not dispute the fact, that there are five civil proceedings pending between the parties, with respect to the same subject matter.
5.
Perused the papers. It appears that the Applicants are Local Cable Operators (LCO) and
are engaged in the business of Cable Television, by providing their cable network services to customers, within Nashik District. The principal allegation as against the Applicants is (i) that they collected subscription charges from individual customers and did not forward the same to the Complainant; and (ii) that the Set Top Boxes which were handed over by the Complainant - Company were being used to transmit signals of other Companies. It is not in dispute, that there are five civil proceedings pending between the parties with respect to the same subject matter. In the facts, custodial interrogation of the Applicants is not required. Accordingly, the Application is allowed and the Applicants are granted prearrest bail on the following terms & conditions:- O R D E R (i) In the event of arrest, the Applicants be enlarged on bail, on executing PR Bond in the
sum of Rs.15,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount;
(ii) The Applicants shall report to the investigating officer of the concerned police station as & when called for by the investigating officer.
6.
The Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of. 7.
In view of disposal of the Application, the Intervention Application does not survive and the same stands disposed of accordingly.
8.
It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima facie, and the trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.
Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)