Jharkhand High Court
Yogesh Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 9 April, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 899 of 2024
1. Yogesh Kumar
2. Manish Kumar ... Petitioners
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Spl.P.P.
-----
05/09.04.2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Chas P.S. Case No.488 of 2023, for the offence registered under Sections 420, 486, 487, 272, 273 and 120B IPC, Section 51, 64 and 65 of Copyright Act and Sections 103 and 104 of Trademark Act, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are shopkeepers, who have purchased the materials from local market and sell them with a margin or profit. He submits that the petitioners are not the creator of packaging of the salt and they only sell them. He further submits that in view of the provisions made under the Copyright Act as well as Trademarks Act, no case is made out against the petitioners, He refers to Section 14 of the Copyright Act, Sections 112 as well a Section 115 of Trademarks Act and submits that cognizance can be taken if the complaint is filed by the Registrar and in the present case the allegations are made by none other than the officers of Tata Consumer Products. He also submits that the co-accused has been provided privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court in A.B.A. No.626 of 2024.
4. Learned State counsel opposed the prayer on the ground that the petitioners were selling spurious salt and the name of the salt was looking like Tata product.
5. It appears that the petitioners are shopkeepers and they have -1- A.B.A. No. 899 of 2024 purchased the salt from elsewhere and the petitioners are not the creator of the said packaging and prima facie the ingredients of Section 14 of Copyright Act is not made out. So far as Section 112 of the Trademarks Act is concerned, the conditions are not fulfilled and that is the subject matter of trial, however so far as Section 115 of Trademarks Act is concerned, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that is not attracted. The co-accused has already been provided privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court in the aforesaid A.B.A.
6. In the attending facts and circumstances, I am inclined to provide privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioners, above named, are hereby directed to surrender before the learned Court within three weeks from today, and in the event of their surrender/arrest, the petitioners, above named, shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each, with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, in connection with Chas P.S. Case No.488 of 2023, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/ -2- A.B.A. No. 899 of 2024