Jharkhand High Court
Munna Kumar @ Munna Agrawal vs The State Of Jharkhand .... Opposite ... on 12 March, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 626 of 2024
----
Munna Kumar @ Munna Agrawal .... Petitioner
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. N.K. Ganjhu, Advocate
----
2/12.03.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his 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, sections 103 and 104 of Trade Mark Act, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a shop-keeper who has purchased the materials from local market and sells them with a margin or profit. He submits that the petitioner is not the creator of packaging of the salt and he only sells them. He further submits that in view of the provisions made under the Copy Right Act as well as Trade Marks Act, no case is made out against the petitioner and he refers to section 14 of the Copy Right Act, sections 112 as well a section 115 of Trade Marks Act and he submits that cognizance can be taken if the complaint is filed by the Registrar of Copy Rights and in the present case the allegations are made by none other than the officers of Tata Consumer Products.
4. Learned State counsel opposed the prayer on the ground that the petitioner was selling spurious salt and the name of the salt was looking like Tata product.
5. It appears that the petitioner is a shop-keeper and he has purchased the salt from elsewhere and the petitioner is not the creator of the said packaging and prima facie the ingredients of section 14 of Copy Right Act is not made out. So far as section 112 of the Trade Marks Act is concerned, the conditions are not fulfilled and that is the subject matter of trial, however so far 2 as section 115 of Trade Marks Act is concerned, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that is not attracted.
6. In the attending facts and circumstances, I am inclined to provide privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, is hereby directed to surrender before the learned court within three weeks from today, and in the event of his surrender/arrest, the petitioner, above named, shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), 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.) SI/