Facts of the Case

The applicants, Hariom Gupta and Ramkumar Sharma, filed an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Case Crime No. 16 of 2020 registered at Police Station Shamshabad, District Agra, under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

According to the prosecution, 38 allegedly pirated spark plugs bearing the copyrighted mark of the complainant company were recovered from the applicants' shop. The applicants approached the High Court apprehending arrest during the pendency of criminal proceedings.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving alleged copyright infringement.
  2. Whether the nature of allegations, recovery, investigation status, and absence of criminal antecedents justified the grant of anticipatory bail.
  3. Whether the applicants were likely to misuse the liberty of bail or interfere with the investigation or trial.

Petitioners' Arguments

The applicants submitted that:

  • They were innocent and had been falsely implicated.
  • There was no credible evidence warranting their arrest.
  • They had no criminal antecedents.
  • No coercive process had been initiated against them.
  • The recovered spark plugs had been lawfully purchased from an authorised dealer.
  • The products were being sold after payment of the applicable GST, indicating legitimate business transactions.
  • The alleged recovery consisted of only 38 spark plugs, which was not substantial.
  • Investigation had already been completed and the charge-sheet had been filed.
  • They undertook to cooperate with the trial, appear before the Court whenever required, and not misuse the protection of anticipatory bail.

Respondent's Arguments

The learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the anticipatory bail application and sought rejection of the prayer made by the applicants.

Court Order / Findings

The Allahabad High Court considered the principles governing anticipatory bail laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, wherein it was held that while deciding an anticipatory bail application, the Court must examine:

  • The nature and gravity of the accusation.
  • The antecedents of the accused.
  • The possibility of the accused fleeing from justice.
  • The entire available material against the accused.
  • The specific role attributed to the accused.

Applying these principles, the Court observed that considering:

  • the nature of allegations,
  • the role assigned to the applicants,
  • the facts and circumstances of the case, and
  • without expressing any opinion on the merits,

the applicants had made out a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application was allowed.

The Court directed that in the event of arrest, both applicants be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 each with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the following conditions:

  • They shall not tamper with evidence.
  • They shall not influence or intimidate prosecution witnesses.
  • They shall appear before the trial court on every date unless exempted.
  • They shall not commit any similar offence.
  • They shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case.

The Court further clarified that violation of any of the conditions would entitle the trial court to cancel the anticipatory bail in accordance with law.

Important Clarification

  • Mere recovery of allegedly infringing goods does not automatically disentitle an accused from seeking anticipatory bail.
  • Completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal history, and willingness to cooperate are significant considerations while deciding anticipatory bail.
  • Courts continue to apply the principles laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra while adjudicating anticipatory bail applications.
  • Grant of anticipatory bail does not amount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the criminal case.

Sections Involved

  • Section 63, Copyright Act, 1957 – Offence of infringement of copyright.
  • Section 65, Copyright Act, 1957 – Possession of plates for making infringing copies.
  • Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Anticipatory Bail.

Link to Download the Order

https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1785395491_2346compressed.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.