Miraj Ahamed Khan vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. The Court noted that the applicant was a partner of Tu-pac Broadband, which had a distributorship agreement with Joister Infoserve Pvt. Ltd. This agreement stipulated that Joister Infoserve Pvt. Ltd. held an ISP license from the Department of Telecommunications and had granted coverage of its license to Tu-pac Broadband under specified terms. The Court also observed that the distributorship agreement required the distributor to pay the supplier as per invoices. Crucially, the Court acknowledged that Sections 20, 20A, and 21 of the Indian Telegraph Act provided for punishments that included fines and were bailable in nature. Considering these aspects, the Court found no reason to believe that custodial interrogation of the applicant was necessary and therefore granted anticipatory bail.

Facts

The applicant, Miraj Ahamed Khan, sought anticipatory bail in connection with CR No. I-235 of 2018 registered at Mira Road Police Station for offences under Sections 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 20, 20A, and 21 of the Indian Telegraph Act. The applicant is a partner in Tu-pac Broadband, which had an agreement with Joister Infoserve Private Limited, a company holding an Internet Service Provider (ISP) license. The prosecution alleged that the applicant and others were providing unauthorized internet services, leading to a raid where equipment was seized. The applicant claimed he was operating lawfully under a distributorship agreement and that the offences under the Indian Telegraph Act were bailable.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant's actions constitute an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, considering the alleged deception of the Government or any other person? 2. Whether the applicant's activities constitute a breach of Sections 20, 20A, and 21 of the Indian Telegraph Act, and if these offences are bailable? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that he had not violated any provisions of law. He contended that Section 420 of the IPC was not attracted as there was no deception. He further submitted that Tu-pac Broadband operated under a distributorship agreement with Joister Infoserve Pvt. Ltd., which held a valid ISP license. Payments were to be made as per invoices, and the question of paying GST did not arise. The applicant asserted that their ISP business was lawful, supported by valid documents, and that the offences under Sections 20, 20A, and 21 of the Indian Telegraph Act were bailable, making custodial interrogation unnecessary. Revenue's Arguments: The State (Respondent) argued that there was a serious breach of the Indian Telegraph Act, with the accused unauthorizedly selling internet services. They contended that this posed a threat to national security and required investigation, making the applicant's custody necessary. The State highlighted the requirements of license agreements, restrictions on transfer, performance quality, and security conditions.