Sunil Kumar Sah @ Sunil Kumar Sahu vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sunil Kumar Sah, apprehends arrest in connection with N.H. Bangra P.S. Case No. 69 of 2025, registered under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The FIR alleges that a raid on the petitioner's house revealed the sale and purchase of duplicate products of Dabur India Limited and Reckitt Benckiser India Limited, along with other fake articles. The petitioner claims to be a small grocery shop owner who purchased items from local markets without tax invoices. He also points out that a co-accused with similar allegations was granted pre-arrest bail. The State opposes the bail, arguing that the petitioner's inability to provide GST bills or invoices indicates his involvement in selling fake goods and causing loss to the exchequer.
Held
The Court dismissed the petitioner's application for pre-arrest bail. The Court considered the rival submissions and perused the FIR, which contained specific allegations against the petitioner as the owner of the shop where the raid was conducted and fake articles were seized. The Court noted that the petitioner was allegedly engaged in the sale and purchase of these fake articles, which were branded in the name of reputed companies and were found to have a detrimental effect on human health. Based on these specific allegations and the nature of the seized goods, the Court was not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. No specific GST provisions were discussed in detail, but the lack of GST bills was a point of contention.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail in connection with N.H. Bangra P.S. Case No. 69 of 2025, registered under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends he is innocent and falsely implicated, being a small grocery shop owner who purchased items from local markets without proper invoices. He relies on the grant of pre-arrest bail to a co-accused, Prem Sagar, in a similar case (Cr. Misc. No. 69022 of 2025), and highlights his clean antecedent. Revenue's (State's) arguments: The State opposes the bail, arguing that the petitioner's failure to provide GST bills or invoices to prove the genuineness of his goods implicates him in selling fake articles and causing financial loss to the state. The seizure list, according to the State, confirms the absence of supporting tax invoices for the seized items. The State emphasizes the detrimental impact of trading in illegal and spurious items.
Sections Cited
Section 63, Section 65
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER 2 08-10-2025 Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Madan Kumar, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with N.H. Bangra P.S. Case No. 69 of 2025 registered under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copy Right Act, 1957. 3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, a raid was conducted by the police, after receiving a secret information that the petitioner was engaged in sale and purchase of duplicate products of Dabur India Limited and Rekket Bandih India Limited and fake articles, in the brand and name of the original manufactures, were recovered from the house of the petitioner.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2/3 petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner has been made accused for the alleged offence committed under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copy Right Act, 1957. The petitioner is a small grocery shop owner and he has purchased items from the local marked situated in Tajpur, who has not provided any tax invoice in respect of the purchased items, which have been allegedly found to be fake items and being manufactured in the name of registered companies. He further informs that one co- accused namely Prem Sagar, against whom also similar allegation has been alleged in the FIR, has been granted pre- arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 26.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.69022 of 2025. The petitioner being owner of the shop has also been made accused in the present case. The petitioner has clean antecedent. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks to be released on pre-arrest bail.
Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail and submitted that the petitioner is involved not only in sale of fake articles rather he is also responsible for putting loss to the State ex-exchequers, as the petitioner has not been able to furnish any GST bill or any invoice to support that his goods are genuine one, having 3/3 purchased from registered dealer. Learned counsel further informs that the seizure list, which is part of the FIR, reveals that in course of seizure of articles, while raid was conducted, tax invoice had not been provided to support the items. He further informs that sale and trade of illegal and spurious items is fatal to the humankind and on these grounds, the bail application of the petitioner is fit to be dismissed.
Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the FIR, in which specific allegation against the petitioner is that he is owner of the shop where the raid was conducted and fake articles were seized and the petitioner was engaged in sale and purchase of such fake articles, which were registered in the name of reputed companies and such articles are found to have caused bad effect on the body of the humankind, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on pre-arrest bail.
Accordingly, the present application stands dismissed.
Ashishsingh/- (Purnendu Singh, 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.