Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jharkhand High Court

Chandan Gupta @ Chandan Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand .... Opposite ... on 14 June, 2024

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                                       A.B.A. No. 878 of 2024
                                                      ----

Chandan Gupta @ Chandan Kumar .... Petitioner

-- Versus --

The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Advocate :- Mr. Subhneet Jha, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, Advocate

----

06/14.06.2024 This matter is assigned by the Hon'ble A.C.J. to this Bench.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent State.

3. 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 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 51, 64 and 65 of the Copyright Act and Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Mark Act, pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Bokaro.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in identical facts another shopkeeper has been provided the privilege of anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No.626 of 2024. He further submits that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as disclosed in paragraph No.10 of the petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer

--1--

on the ground that the petitioner was selling spurious salt and the name of the salt was looking like Tata product.

6. It appears that the petitioner is a shopkeeper 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 of Copyright 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 as Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act is concerned, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that is not attracted.

7. In the attending facts and circumstances, I am inclined to provide privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

8. 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 C.J.M., 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.) Sangam/

--2--