Delhi High Court: Rajnish Bhatnagar, J., while addressing the allegations of forged agreement, stated that the effect of the same would be considered during trial and no comments to reach any conclusion could be stated at this stage.
Instant anticipatory bail was sought under Sections 420/406/120-B of Penal Code, 1860.
Background
A complaint was lodged by a 90-year-old person against the petitioner and her husband alleging that he practices Vaidacharya and runs a manufacturing unit of some Ayurvedic medicines.
It was alleged that he used to propagate his advice about benefit of Ayurveda on various TV channels. Further, he came in contact with co-accused Sunil Kumar Jha, who introduced himself as channel head of Katyani Devotional TV channel and the complainant started telecasting his programs on the said channel in the year 2010-2011.
Complainant also said that Sunil Kuma Jha introduced the petitioner as his wife by saying that she is an expert having all technical knowledge to run TV channel, broadcasting etc.
Husband/co-accused of the petitioner also apprised the complainant that he had worked in Doordarshan and he alongwith the petitioner is the Director of a company namely M/s Viceroy Engineering Pvt. Ltd. It is alleged that after gaining the trust of the complainant, both the accused persons i.e. the present petitioner and her husband gave a proposal about establishing his own TV channel by purchasing majority shares of M/s Express Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd., which runs a channel namely “Zonet Zawlbuk” (earlier ENTV) and assured the complainant to create all the required infrastructure for establishment of TV channel.
Primary allegation was that the accused person trapped the complainant in the year 2016-17 and the complainant thereafter transferred Rs 2.21 Crores to the bank account of M/s Viceroy Engineering and also gave cash of Rs 25 lacs.
Further, it was added that the accused persons started promotion/ advertisement of complainant’s programme on a channel namely “Sanskriti TV” on which accused persons used content/programme of the complainant and sometimes it was live and sometimes recorded tapes were played.
In 2017, the telecast of the complainant’s programme was stopped and he was neither given payment for telecasting his programme nor he was returned the amount given for the purchase of the channel.
It was also alleged that on the advice of the accused persons, the complainant through bank transferred Rs 19,83,375/- to AV Edit Solution, Rs 27,01,542/- to Planet Cast Media Services Ltd. and Rs 1,50,50,000/- to Dish TV India Ltd. but later on the complainant came to know that the accused persons purchased the channel Sanskriti TV through shareholding of M/s Express Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd. in the name of Bindu Jha (petitioner herein) and not in the name of complainant as promised.
Complainant had also paid a sum of Rs 1.50 Crore in cash additionally for the development of the studio in the premises of the accused persons situated at Chander Nagar, Ghaziabad.
Analysis, Law and Decision
High Court noted that the matter was sent for mediation for settlement but the same could not be settled between the parties.
Court stated that as of now since the charge sheet was already filed without the arrest of the petitioner, all the material evidence and documents were collected, the petitioner was also granted interim protection and there were no allegations that during the period of interim protection she ever tried to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence, in the said circumstances, the bail application was allowed and the petitioner was admitted to bail.
In view of the above discussion, bail application was disposed of. [Bindu Jha v. State, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5194, decided on 2-12-2021]
Advocates before the Court:
For the Petitioner:
Mr Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Mr Vipul Wadhwa, Advocate.
For the Respondent:
Ms Rajni Gupta, APP for the State with SI Vikram Singh, EOW.
Mr Chirag Mudgal, Advocate for the complainant.
