SHIVAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present application under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R.No. 11191011220024 of 2022 registered with DCB Police Station, District Ahmedabad City for the offence punishable under Ss. 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 65 of the Information and Technology Act ; Sec. 6 of the Indian Telegraph Act and Sec. 6 of the Indian Wireless Telegraph Act.

(2.) Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is lawfully conducting a business of BPO call centres since 2017 in the name and style of SBA Business Developers at Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, wherein applicant is providing customer oriented services as per the demands of the customers. That, calls from Saudi Arabia were intercepted and converted to local calls which means that firstly the callas were incoming calls and not outgoing which would not loss to any of the Indian Telecom Companies and if any loss is occurred the same would have occurred to Telecom Companies of Saudi Arabia. That, there is no agreement or contract which can point out that present applicant had such client who wanted to convert the international calls to local calls and for that they were ready and willing to make any payments to present applicant or anyone else. That there is no prima facie occurrence of offence.

(3.) It was further submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. That, applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent Court for his remand. He would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant-accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. Ultimately, it was requested by learned advocate for the applicant to allow present application.