Md. Abdul Samad @ Md. Samad vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Md. Abdul Samad. While the judgment does not explicitly delve into the intricacies of GST provisions or copyright law to decide the core legal questions, it acknowledges the petitioner's submission that he is a registered dealer who purchased the goods against a tax invoice showing payment of CGST and SGST. The Court, having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances, including the petitioner's claim of purchasing goods with tax paid, found it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail. The operative direction was to release the petitioner on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount, subject to standard conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and additional conditions including co-operation with the investigation and presence in court during trial. No specific issue was left undecided; the decision was primarily on the grant of bail.

Facts

The petitioner, Md. Abdul Samad, proprietor of M/s Sania Electronics, sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 452 of 2018. The case was registered for alleged offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 63/65 of the Copyright Act. The petitioner claimed to be falsely implicated and stated that he is a registered dealer who purchased 96 fans from M/s Durga Electric on July 2, 2018, against a tax invoice that included CGST and SGST. He asserted that he is not a manufacturer and has clean antecedents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, as a registered dealer who purchased goods against a tax invoice, can be held liable for offences under Section 420 IPC and Section 63/65 of the Copyright Act for allegedly selling non-genuine products, considering the provisions related to the sale of goods and tax compliance? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that he is a registered dealer and purchased the goods in question against a valid tax invoice, including CGST and SGST. He claimed to have no involvement in manufacturing and asserted his innocence, suggesting he was falsely implicated. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions made by the State (Opposite Party) regarding the allegations or the petitioner's defence.