Dheeraj Kumar And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. The Court considered the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, which emphasizes considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedent of the accused, the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice, and evaluating all available material carefully, including the exact role of the accused. Applying these principles to the instant case, considering the submissions of both parties, the nature of the accusation, the role of the applicants, and all attending facts and circumstances, the Court found a case for anticipatory bail was made out without expressing an 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 in the like amount, 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 moved by Dheeraj Kumar and four others. The applicants are accused in Case Crime No. 16 of 2020, registered under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act at Police Station Shamshabad, District Agra. The prosecution alleges the recovery of pirated spark plugs from the shops of the applicants. Specifically, 30 pirated spark plugs were recovered from applicant no. 1, 17 from applicant no. 2, 52 from applicant no. 3, 40 from applicant no. 4, and 9 from applicant no. 5. The alleged plugs bore the copyright mark of the complainant company. The applicants claim to be innocent, have no criminal antecedents, and have already paid GST on the articles they purchased and sold. A charge-sheet has been filed, and the investigation is complete.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, considering the allegations of copyright infringement and the recovery of pirated goods? The applicants argued that they are innocent and have no credible evidence against them. They submitted that they purchased the articles from dealers and paid due GST, and the quantity of recovered items is not substantial. They also stated that the investigation is complete, and a charge-sheet has been filed. The applicants undertook to cooperate with the trial and appear as and when required by the court, promising not to misuse bail liberty. The State, through the learned A.G.A., opposed the application for anticipatory bail.