Sushree Mohanty
The Bombay High Court continued to hear the bail request filed by former BARC CEO Partho Dasgupta in the Television Rating Points (TRP) scam case which is currently under investigation by the Mumbai Police.
Dasgupta was detained in December and has been remanded in legal custody for his supposed contribution to the TRP scam case.
Justice PD Naik who is presiding over the matter had issued a notification asking the Dasgupta’s advocates to withdraw their forthcoming petition before the Supreme Court.
Senior Advocate Abad Ponda had previously submitted his arguments on behalf of Dasgupta.
Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the state, Shishir Hiray continued his arguments before the Hon’ble Court in its proceeding.
In his opening statements, Hiray alluded to certain assertions made by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal before the Bench headed by Justices SS Shinde.
He further informed the court that the council had received the authorization from the Court to investigate Dasgupta while he was remanded custody and all necessary measures were taken to ensure a fair investigation.
Hiray additionally states that Dasgupta was given a questionnaire; however, he reserved his silence on the answers.
“He is not answering even the simplest of questions”, he stated
Further, he submitted that there were several chats which must be investigated and asserted that the organization channel head and Dasgupta were good companions. He also referred to the instance when Arnab Goswami went to the extent of calling Dasgupta was “his alter ego”.
While reading out the panchnama, Hiray attracted the court’s attention to a panchnama dated December 2020 and stated that the amount of money recorded therein must have been transferred to Mr. Goswami in consideration of a gratification.
He further relied on the case of Rana Kapoor (matter between Rana Kapoor v. Enforcement Directorate) and argued that the investigations have uncovered several chats between the two individuals which indicate their close relationship.
He argued that since both personalities are influential and hold certain powers, they are possibilities which indicate that there have been instances to attempt to tamper with the evidence for the matter.
Aabad Ponda, objected to the allegations and said that the text messages exchanged were not admissible in the court.
“Regarding WhatsApp chats, I will only say it is loose talk. Those are not admissible and need corroborative evidence. No one should be detained because of loose talks.” he argued.
Hiray then concluded his arguments by contending that the bail application should not be allowed.
He additionally submitted a status report in a sealed cover which was presented before the Division Bench of the Court.
Advocate Ponda objected to the submission of such records and referred to the Supreme Court judgment of Chidambaram case on the same subject.
Justice Naik reiterated Ponda’s contentions and said: “Judges can read from those documents but cannot express their views on it”.
The session was adjourned for a second-half hearing.
Court resumed its hearing with Senior Advocate Abad Ponda submitting a rejoinder to Hiray’s submissions.
While submitting his arguments, Advocate Ponda challenged Hiray’s contention alluding that the position of Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer are same and said that The Company Act suggests that the two positions are different from each other.
He further contends that the Rana Kapoor judgement pertained to a bank scam and thus the comparisons are invalid.
Refuting the allegations made for cheating, Ponda argued that no witnesses or complaint has been received from the said victims and states the council had tried to turn the case into a “sensational scam case and have earned crores from it”.
Additionally Senior Advocate Ponda submitted that Partho Dasgupta was merely aware of the Acquisory Risk Consulting Pvt Ltd report and relied on former BARC employee Pekham Basu’s statements.
He added that the statement indicated charges against the co-accused, former BARC COO Romil Ramgarhia and only one line in the entire statement named Dasgupta.
He also read another supplementary report on the oversight committee and relied on the judgement of Sakharam case delivered by Bombay High Court.
Ponda concluded his arguments by submitting a copy of Partho’s chat with Arnab Goswami.
“You have too many enemies… I will be your friend… but not compromise my values.”, the chat read.
Ponda added that “It’s a travesty of justice to keep a man in prison, indefinitely.”
The Special Public Prosecutor asserted that Dasgupta was directly involved and has close links to the scam as he was shown as a Managing Director for the Company.
Justice Naik enquired about the number of witnesses for the case for which Hiray submitted that till present he is aware of ninety (90) witnesses.
Ponda objected and said there are more than the stated numbers of witnesses.
The Court reserved its verdict in the matter for further orders.