Dharambir vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court dismissed the petition for pre-arrest bail. While not commenting on the merits of the case to avoid prejudice, the Court noted the allegation that the petitioner was illegally transmitting paid channels of TV-18 Broadcast Ltd. without valid license or authorization. The Court reasoned that pre-arrest bail should be granted in exceptional circumstances, and a person on pre-arrest bail might not disclose all facts. It held that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was required for a complete and effective investigation, and denying it would create loopholes. The Court concluded that, considering the totality of the scenario and the nature of the offense, no extraordinary grounds were made out for granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petition.

Facts

The petitioner, Dharambir, sought pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 454 dated 23.12.2019, registered under the Copyright Act, 1957, and Sections 379 and 420 IPC. The FIR alleged illegal transmission of paid channels of TV-18 Broadcast Ltd. by the petitioner through his cable network, Dharambir Digital Network, without authorization. The petitioner claimed to have a valid license as a Cable Operator under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, and argued that the offenses under the Copyright Act were bailable and those under the IPC were not made out. He also contended that the confiscation of his equipment violated Section 14 of the Act. The State, however, argued that the petitioner lacked authorization to transmit paid channels for 2018-2020, causing significant financial loss to the complainant and the government due to non-payment of GST. The State also highlighted seventeen other similar cases registered against the petitioner, labeling him a habitual offender.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 454 dated 23.12.2019, registered under Sections 37, 51, 63, 65, and 69 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Sections 379 and 420 IPC, considering the allegations of illegal transmission of paid channels. Petitioner's Arguments: - The allegations are false and concocted. - The petitioner possessed a valid license as a Cable Operator under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. - Offenses under Sections 37, 51, 63, 65, and 69 of the Copyright Act, 1957, are bailable. - Ingredients of Sections 379 and 420 IPC are not made out as he had a valid license. - Confiscation of equipment violated Section 14 of the Act, 1995. - He is ready to join the investigation. Respondent's (State) Arguments: - The petitioner lacked authority to transmit paid channels of TV-18 Broadcast Ltd. for 2018-2020. - The transmission was illegal, without license or authorization, causing losses to the complainant and the government (GST). - Seventeen other similar cases are registered against the petitioner, indicating he is a habitual offender. - Custodial interrogation is required for effective investigation.