Facts of the Case

The applicants filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with Case Crime No. 16 of 2020 registered under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act at Police Station Shamshabad, District Agra.

According to the prosecution, pirated spark plugs bearing the copyrighted mark of the complainant company were recovered from the respective shops of all five applicants. The recoveries included 30, 17, 52, 40, and 9 spark plugs from the different applicants.

The applicants contended that they had legally purchased the products from authorized dealers and were selling them after payment of applicable GST. They further submitted that the quantity recovered was not substantial, investigation had already been completed, charge-sheet had been filed, and they had no criminal antecedents. They also undertook to cooperate with the trial proceedings and comply with any conditions imposed by the Court.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
  2. Whether the facts and circumstances justified granting protection from arrest despite allegations under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act.
  3. Whether completion of investigation, filing of charge-sheet, absence of criminal history, and willingness to cooperate justified the grant of anticipatory bail.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The applicants asserted that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated.
  • They argued that there was no credible evidence warranting their arrest.
  • They submitted that the alleged products had been purchased through dealers in the ordinary course of business.
  • GST had been duly paid on the products being sold.
  • The quantity of allegedly infringing products recovered was not substantial.
  • Investigation had already concluded and the charge-sheet had been filed.
  • None of the applicants had any criminal antecedents.
  • They undertook to cooperate during the trial and comply with all conditions imposed by the Court.

Respondent's Arguments

The State opposed the anticipatory bail application and sought rejection of the prayer for pre-arrest protection.

Court Order / Findings

The Allahabad High Court referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694, which requires courts to consider factors such as:

  • Nature and gravity of the accusation.
  • Criminal antecedents of the accused.
  • Possibility of fleeing from justice.
  • Overall material available on record.
  • Exact role attributed to each accused.

After considering the settled legal principles, the submissions of both parties, the nature of allegations, the role of the applicants, and all surrounding circumstances, the Court held that the applicants had made out a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court allowed the anticipatory bail application.

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

  • Not tampering with evidence.
  • Not intimidating prosecution witnesses.
  • Appearing before the trial court as directed.
  • Not committing similar offences.
  • Not inducing or threatening any person acquainted with the facts of the case.

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

Important Clarification

  • Mere allegation regarding possession or sale of allegedly infringing goods does not automatically justify custodial arrest where relevant circumstances favour grant of anticipatory bail.
  • Completion of investigation, filing of charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents, and willingness to cooperate with the trial are significant factors while considering anticipatory bail.
  • Grant of anticipatory bail does not amount to a finding on the merits of the criminal case, which will be decided independently during trial.
  • Courts continue to apply the principles laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra while deciding anticipatory bail applications.

Link to Download the Order

https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1785395501_2347compressed.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.