Allowed

Rakesh Arora v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Feb 2012CRM-M/33623/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed the petitioner's application for pre-arrest (anticipatory) bail in a case involving unauthorized cable TV broadcasting. The court held that once the accused joins investigation and nothing needs to be recovered, continued piracy is not relevant to bail grant, making the interim anticipatory bail absolute.

What did the court decide?

The application was allowed; the interim anticipatory bail order dated 7.11.2011 was made absolute granting bail to the petitioner.

Rakesh Arora Vs State of Punjab — Intellectual Property | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-33623 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-33623 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 24^th , 2012

Rakesh Arora

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶11

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

Present Mr. Mohinder Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab, for the State assisted by Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶14

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶15

Crl. Misc. No. 6083 of 2012

¶16

This is an application for impleading complainant, Sandeep Kumar as respondent No. 2 in the array of the respondents.

¶17

The application is allowed. Name of Sandeep Kumar, complainant be incorporated in the heading of the petition as respondent No.2.

¶18

Crl. Miscs. No. 8537-38 of 2012

¶19

Applications are allowed, as prayed for. Documents, Annexures R-2/1 and R-2/4 and reply on behalf of respondent No. 2 are taken on record.

¶20

Crl. Misc. No.M-33623 of 2011

¶21

¶22

Main petition.

¶23

Rakesh Arora has sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.41 dated 24.08.2011 at Police Station D Division, Amritsar, District Amritsar for an offence punishable under sections 37, 51, 52-A, 63, 68-A of the Copyright Act, 1957 and sections 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code.

¶24

It is a case got registered by Sandeep Kumar, respondent No.2, that M/s Godfather Communications, a cable network agency run by Gurdev Singh Bhullar alongwith its employees and partner and sub operators, Rakesh Arora etc. are broadcasting the channels of MSM Discovery Private Limited in unauthorized manner and are collecting money from the public on account of which their company is suffering losses.

¶25

As has become clear during the course of arguments, MSM Discovery Private Limited grants rights to relay signals by the cable operators for a given area and that M/s Godfather Communications is giving cable connections in the area outside the area of its authorized operation.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not a sub-operator of M/s Godfather Communications but only a subscriber of the same. He has submitted that Gurdev Singh Bhullar is the registered cable operator and is running his business in Amritsar in the name of M/s Godfather Communications. He has submitted that in compliance of the orders of this court, the petitioner has already joined the investigation and that nothing is left to be recovered

¶27

Crl. Misc. No.M-33623 of 2011

¶28

¶29

from him.

¶30

Learned State counsel has admitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation and that nothing has to be recovered from him. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the petitioner is still continuing with the piracy of the signals. According to him, he has not stopped the said acts despite the fact that he has joined the investigation. However, with regard to the matter of bail, he also had no objection in case bail is granted to the petitioner because he has already joined the investigation and that nothing is left to be recovered from him.

¶31

In case of grant of rights by a company to a cable network agency, signals can be regulated. If a cable network agency is continuing the offence of piracy and is not amenable to reason despite being asked to stop the illegal activities, the signals to the cable network agency could be stopped. So, the submissions of learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner is still continuing with the piracy is not relevant in this matter of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶32

In this view of the matter, without commenting on the merits of the case, I deem it proper to grant bail to the petitioner. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the order dated 7.11.2011 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner by this court is made absolute.

¶33

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶34

February 24^th , 2012 som

Rakesh Arora v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Arora v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Miss Pooja Ahluwalia Vs State of Punjab

Ram Parkash Verma Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mahavir Singh Dhanda & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors. (Decided Case)

Mukandi Lal Singla Vs United Commercial Bank and Anr.

Tarsem Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

R.K. Gupta Vs State of Hry. & Ors.