Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
An Application For Anticipatory Bail ... vs In Re : Shree Debasish Ghosh & Ors - on 29 July, 2015
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
1 80. 29-07-15
gn.
CRM No. 6478 of 2015 In the matter of an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 10.07.2015 in connection with Electronics Complex P.S. Case No. 77 dated 03.06.2015 under Section 420/406/34 IPC.
And In Re : Shree Debasish Ghosh & Ors -petitioners Mr. Sandipan Ganguli Ms. Swapan Kumar Mallick Mrs. Mahuya Dutta... for the petitioners Mrs. Debjani Sahu ... for the State Mr. Indranil Nandi Mr. Deba Prasad Samanta ... for de facto complainant It is the case of the prosecution that the de facto complainant is the Executive-Administration of Indian Cable Net Company Ltd. carrying on business of distributions and exhibition of digital cable television signal to its customers/end users and is a multi-system operator. M/s. Akash Darshan, a registered partnership firm of which the petitioners before us are the partners of the said firm which is a local cable operator. It is the further case of the de facto complainant, during the business transaction, total 1838 set top boxes were provided to the firm of the petitioners by his company.
According to the de facto complainant, presently the firm of the accused has migrated to another multi system operator but is not returning the set top boxes, which were given to the 2 firm of the petitioners and misappropriated the subscription to the tune of Rs. 10.82 lakhs which they have collected from the different subscribers.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that already police has seized 3,000 set top boxes which were belonging to the de facto complainant and the story of misappropriation of subscription by the firm of the petitioners, is not correct because that amount was calculated by taking into account the period during which the petitioners were not providing any cable service through their multi system operation to the subscribers. He further contends that the agreement contained a specific clause for arbitration but without referring the dispute to any arbitrator, now the de facto complainant with utter mala fide, utilizing the criminal process for recovery of their alleged dues. He then added that they have also not been paid their incentives and the learned Counsel for the petitioners assured this court that they are ready and willing to refund the money after deducting their incentives.
On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the State has not disputed that total 3,000 set top boxes have been seized but only submitted that out of those seized boxes, only 1156 boxes, which were provided to the consumer through the firm of the present petitioners and although the balance boxes are actually 3 belonging to the company of the de facto complainant but that was provided to the consumer through the different local cable operators. However, the learned Counsel for the State has not disputed the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have on several occasions met the Investigating Officer of the case.
Having regard to the development as above and considering the nature of the allegations, we allow the prayer for anticipatory bail.
In the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer upon furnishing Bond of Rs. 5,000/- each on condition that after release, they shall surrender before the regular court within four weeks thereafter.
This order is subject to the conditions as laid down in sub- Section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.)