Facts of the Case

This is a criminal case about alleged trademark counterfeiting, not GST. The petitioner apprehended arrest in a case registered for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 IPC, arising from allegations that he, along with co-accused persons, was involved in manufacturing and selling goods under the brand 'Mahaveer Tools and Company' using a false trademark. The petitioner's case was that the go-down in question belonged to his brother (co-accused), and that he had been implicated merely because of that relationship, while he separately ran and managed his own registered business, 'Hello Sales Corporation,' with a valid GST registration number.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in the trademark counterfeiting case.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner had no connection with the alleged offence and was implicated only because he is the brother of the co-accused who owns the go-down in question.
  • The petitioner runs a separate, registered business with his wife under the name 'Hello Sales Corporation,' with a valid GST registration, demonstrating he had his own legitimate livelihood unconnected to the alleged offence.
  • The petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence, so no incriminating material could be recovered from his possession, and he had clean antecedents.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The State opposed the bail petition, without further specific arguments recorded in the order.

Court Order / Findings

  • Considering the facts and circumstances, including that the petitioner was not present at the scene and ran a separate business, the Court granted anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Important Clarification

The petitioner's GST registration was mentioned only to show he had his own separate, legitimate business unconnected to the alleged counterfeiting — no GST compliance question was examined or decided by the Court.

Sections Involved

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 (anticipatory bail)

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the petitioner on the limited question of anticipatory bail; the underlying trademark counterfeiting allegations remain to be tried.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna  |  Case No.: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 50354 of 2023  |  Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh  |  Date: 1 November 2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

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.