IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-27129 of 2009 Date of decision : October 30, 2009 Gurdial Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Mohinder Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Gurdial Singh has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 118 dated 26.8.2009 under sections 379, 506 IPC and section 16 of the Cable Television Network Registration Act, 1995, Police Station Division No. 3, Jalandhar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, complainant is distributor of M/s Fastway Transmission Pvt. Ltd, having exclusive rights for cable transmission of paid channels for Jalandhar city but the petitioner who is franchise of A-one Cables and is rival competitor of the complainant in the city, was stealing the signals of paid channels of the complainant and Criminal Misc. No. M-27129 of 2009 -2- transmitting the same to the customers and collecting payment for the same from the customers. Earlier also another FIR No. 92 dated 18.7.2009 was lodged against the petitioner on similar allegations but even thereafter he had not stopped his activities. The petitioner also refused to pay for the signals of the paid channels to the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner was only collection agent of A-one Channel Cable Network run by Ragini Thakur and now he has also left the said job. On the other hand, learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Rajbir Singh, contended that the petitioner himself has been transmitting signals through cable network in Kot Baba Deep Singh Nagar, Mathura Nagar, Sodal Nagar, Jyoti Estate and Ashok Vihar of Jalandhar to customers through cable network. Statement of two witnesses (customers of the petitioner) have also been recorded during investigation and even petitioner admitted the same on joining interrogation pursuant to interim order of this Court. Keeping in view the allegations and other circumstances but without expressing any opinion on merits, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) October 30, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'