Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Yakub @ Yakub Ali, apprehended arrest in connection with an FIR registered for offences under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code along with Sections 63, 65 and 68 of the Copyright Act. The prosecution alleged that during a police raid, packets of different brands of biri were recovered from the petitioner's factory. Based on the alleged recovery, criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner alleging copyright infringement and related offences.

 

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.
  2. Whether recovery of different branded biri packets from the petitioner's factory was sufficient to deny anticipatory bail.
  3. Whether the allegations under the Copyright Act and IPC justified custodial interrogation.

 

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner contended that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated due to ulterior motives.
  • It was submitted that he is the proprietor of Milan Biri Factory No.1 Asli Hira.
  • He argued that he had no connection whatsoever with the alleged recovery relating to Ajhar Biri Factory.
  • The petitioner further submitted that he regularly pays GST on his own branded products and therefore had not committed any offence under the Copyright Act.
  • It was also highlighted that he had no criminal antecedents.

 

Respondent's Arguments

The State opposed the anticipatory bail application relying upon the prosecution allegations that packets of different branded biri were recovered during the police raid from the petitioner's factory and that offences under the IPC and the Copyright Act had been made out.

 

Court Order / Findings

The Patna High Court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, including the petitioner's submissions, the nature of the allegations, and the absence of any criminal antecedents.

The Court held that the petitioner deserved the protection of anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, it directed that in the event of arrest or surrender within six weeks, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a bail bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria, subject to the conditions prescribed under Section 438(2) CrPC.

 

Important Clarification

  • Mere recovery of products during investigation does not automatically disentitle an accused from anticipatory bail.
  • The Court took note of the petitioner's claim that he was operating his own registered biri business and paying GST.
  • Absence of criminal antecedents was considered an important factor while granting anticipatory bail.
  • The order does not decide the merits of the allegations relating to copyright infringement or cheating; it only grants protection from arrest during investigation.

Sections Involved

  • Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Sections 63, 65 & 68 of the Copyright Act, 1957
  • Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now corresponding provisions under BNSS, wherever applicable)

 

Link to Download the Order https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1782894938_70.pdf

 

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.