Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • 420 of the IPC and 37, 51, 65 & 63 of the Copy Right Act
  • Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
  • Television Network (Regulation) Act 2 1995
  • Section 420 of the IPC and Section 37,51,65 & 63 of the Copy Right Act 1957. Prosecution allegations
  • sub-Section 2 of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Cert
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • 420 of the IPC and 37, 51, 65 & 63 of the Copy Right Act
  • Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
  • Television Network (Regulation) Act 2 1995
  • Section 420 of the IPC and Section 37,51,65 & 63 of the Copy Right Act 1957. Prosecution allegations
  • sub-Section 2 of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Cert
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    VINOD SINGH v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

    1

    (Vinod Singh Vs. State of M.P.)

    25.03.2015

    Shri Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.

    Ms Nutan Saxena, learned Publ ic Prosecutor for the non-appl icant/State.

    Heard arguments on bail.

    Perused case diary and material on record. This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 37/2015 registered at Police Station Kumbhraj District Guna against him for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 37,51,65 & 63 of the Copy Right Act 1957. Prosecution allegations are that 5 to 6 months prior to the registration of FIR dated 11.02.2015 in village Kumbhraj, the applicant had been found telecasting channels namely Star Sports, Star Plus, Life OK, Star Utsav and Star Gold without permission of the service providers of the aforesaid channels.

    Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is a delay of 5 to 6 months in the lodgment of FIR. It is also submitted by him that if the contents of the FIR are accepted at the face value, despite that the offence u/S 420 of the IPC and 37, 51, 65 & 63 of the Copy Right Act are not made out. At the most, the offence u/S 16 read with 3 of the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act

    2

    1995 may be made out, which is bailable. Upon these submissions, prayer is made for grant of anticipatory bail. Learned Publ ic Prosecutor opposes the prayer. On due considerat ion of the facts and

    circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced on behalf of the part ies by their counsel, but without commenting on meri ts of the case, I am of the opinion that i t is a f i t case for grant of ant icipatory bai l to the appl icant. Accordingly, this applicat ion is al lowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the appl icant in connection with the aforesaid crime number and the offences, appl icant

    Vinod Singh be released on bai l on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the l ike amount to the sat isfact ion of the arrest ing police off icer.

    The appl icant is directed to join the invest igat ion immediately and to ful ly cooperate the invest igat ing agency. He wi l l further abide by the condit ions enumerated in sub-Section 2 of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

    Cert i f ied copy as per rules.

    (Rajendra Mahajan) Judge

    sh/-

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    VINOD SINGH v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
    (Mar 25, 2015)