Mohan Lal Daruka vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Mohan Lal Daruka, proprietor of Mahavir Syndicate, a GST-registered firm, sought anticipatory bail. He was accused of selling counterfeit pipes under the name 'SUPER MALHOTRA PIPES', allegedly infringing on the trademark 'MALHOTRA PIPES'. The petitioner claimed to be a retail seller, not a manufacturer, and that all goods were purchased via tax invoices from third-party vendors. He argued that 'SUPER MALHOTRA' and 'MALHOTRA' are visually distinct and he lacked the intent to infringe. The petitioner also asserted a clean antecedent. The case was registered under Sections 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sections 63 & 65 of the Copyright Act, and Sections 103 & 104 of the Trademarks Act.

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. Considering the backdrop of the case, the nature of the accusation, and the petitioner's clean antecedent, the Court ordered that the petitioner, upon arrest or surrender before the court below within eight weeks, be enlarged on bail. This was subject to furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai. The conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, were also to be adhered to. The Court did not explicitly discuss the legal provisions related to trademark or copyright infringement in detail but implicitly accepted the petitioner's defense regarding his role and intent in granting bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, as a retail seller purchasing goods through tax invoices, can be held liable for selling counterfeit products, particularly when he claims no knowledge or intent to infringe trademarks or copyrights under Sections 103 & 104 of the Trademarks Act and Sections 63 & 65 of the Copyright Act? 2. Whether the petitioner's apprehension of arrest is justified given his alleged role as a retail seller and his claim of a clean antecedent, in the context of Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that he is an innocent retail seller who procures goods from third-party vendors via tax invoices and is GST registered. He argued that the trademarks 'SUPER MALHOTRA' and 'MALHOTRA' are visibly distinct, negating any intent to infringe. He also highlighted his clean antecedent. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently opposed the bail application.