Hairom Gupta And Another vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. The Court considered the settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, which mandates consideration of the nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedent of the accused, the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice, and a careful evaluation of all available material. Applying these principles to the instant case, the Court found that a case for anticipatory bail was made out, considering the submissions of both parties, the nature of the accusation, the role of the applicants, and all attending facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The applicants were directed to be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each, subject to several conditions, including not tampering with evidence, not intimidating witnesses, appearing before the trial court, and not committing similar offences.

Facts

This case involves an application for anticipatory bail filed by Hairom Gupta and another applicant. They are accused in Case Crime no. 16 of 2020, under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, at Police Station Shamshabad, District Agra. The prosecution alleges the recovery of 38 pirated spark plugs from the applicants' shop, bearing the copyright mark of the complainant company. The applicants contend they are innocent, have no criminal antecedents, and purchased the articles after paying due GST. They claim the recovery is not substantial, the investigation is complete, and a charge-sheet has been filed. They undertake to cooperate with the trial.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in Case Crime no. 16 of 2020, under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, considering the allegations of copyright infringement and the recovery of pirated goods. Arguments for the applicants: The applicants argued that they are innocent, have no criminal antecedents, and have paid due GST on the goods sold. They submitted that the recovery is not significant, the investigation is complete, and a charge-sheet has been filed. They also assured cooperation with the trial and undertook not to misuse bail. They relied on the principle that anticipatory bail should be granted when there is no credible evidence and the accused undertakes to cooperate. Arguments for the State (Opposite Party): The learned A.G.A. opposed the application for anticipatory bail.