Rajesh Kumar Gupta @ Munna Gupta vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Rajesh Kumar Gupta, is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Amas P.S. Case No. 11 of 2025, registered for offences under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The FIR alleges that on January 11, 2025, during an inspection of shops suspected of selling duplicate company parts, the petitioner's shop was found to be selling duplicate parts of Ashok Leyland Limited. The seized parts were then used as the basis for lodging the FIR. The petitioner contends that there is no expert evidence to prove the parts are duplicate and that his shop is GST registered, contrary to an alleged implication. He also states he has no criminal antecedents.
Held
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The reasoning was based on the fact that the petitioner was implicated based on an allegation of manufacturing duplicate parts, but there was no expert evidence to substantiate this claim. The Court also noted that the petitioner is a registered shopkeeper under GST, as evidenced by Annexure-2, and that he has no criminal antecedents. Considering these factors, the Court found it appropriate to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail. The operative directions included releasing the petitioner on bail upon arrest or surrender within thirty days, furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties, and adhering to the conditions stipulated under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, including appearing on each date before the Trial Court, not tampering with evidence, and not committing any further criminal offences.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in Amas P.S. Case No. 11 of 2025, considering the allegations of selling duplicate parts and the absence of expert evidence, the petitioner's GST registration, and his lack of criminal antecedents? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he has been falsely implicated as there is no expert report to confirm the seized parts are duplicate. He further contended that the allegation of his shop not being registered with GST is false, as evidenced by Annexure-2, which shows his GST registration number (10AEFPG7724Q1ZD). Additionally, he submitted that he has no prior criminal record. Revenue/State's arguments: The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
Sections Cited
Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 63, 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957, Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER 3 29-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Amas P.S. Case No.11 of 2025, F.I.R dated 11.01.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 63 and 65 of the Copy Right Act, 1957. 3. According to prosecution case, on 11.01.2025, the informant, authorized by his company, visited Hemzapur Highway Road to verify reports of sale of duplicate company parts. He sought assistance from Amas Police Station, and a police team accompanied him. During the inspection, shops belonging to Zaya Ahmad, Ranjeet Singh, and Munna Gupta 2/4 were found allegedly selling duplicate parts of Ashok Leyland Limited. The parts were seized in the presence of the police, following which the FIR was lodged.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the basis of allegation of manufacturing duplicate parts of Ashok Leyland while there is no evidence or any report of expert to show that the parts which is said to have been seized, is duplicate parts of the company in question. It is the case of the petitioner that the allegation of the shop of the petitioner not being registered with GST gets falsified by Annexure-2, which goes to show that the petitioner is a registered shopkeeper vide GST No.10AEFPG7724Q1ZD. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail application.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances the petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the basis of allegation of manufacturing duplicate parts of Ashok Leyland while there is no evidence or any report of expert to show that the parts which is said to have been seized, is duplicate parts of the company in question and the petitioner is a 3/4 registered shopkeeper and the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. . Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M. Sherghati, Gaya (Bihar) in connection with Amas P.S. Case No.11 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- (i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document/personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide; (ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, 4/4 failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds; (iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
sharun/- (Ajit Kumar, J) U T
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.