Anuj Singh vs The State of Jharkhand

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 420, 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 78 of the Trade Merchandise Act, 1958.

The prosecution case is that complainant runs his business in the name and style of "Chhaganlal Dayaljee for the last nine decades. As per the allegation the petitioner used the Trademark of complainant''s firm under the name and style of Chhagunlal Gopalji Sons and Chaggunlal Madanalal & Sons in Mango area with malafide intention and it is violation of the property rights in the trademark of the complainant firm. So it appears that petitioner is running two Firms using word "Chhagunlal" along with some additional words such as Gopalji and Madan Lal and Sons. However there is no denial of the fact that "Chhaganlal Dayaljee" is registered Trade Mark of the complainant and Trade Mark is pet of the Goodwill.

Under order dated 15.12.2016 both the parties are directed to remain physically present before this Court to try possibility of reconciliation through process of mediation but it has been failed. On 17.01.2017 this court was directed to take instruction from his client as to whether he is ready to deposit Rs. 50,000/-.

When the case is called out learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is not ready to deposit the aforesaid amount. It is also submitted that a Title Suit bearing Title Suit No. 7 of 2016 for a decree of permanent injunction from restraining him for using the registered trade mark of the informant namely, Chhagan Lal Dayal Jee or any other identical trade mark. It is also submitted that petitioner is not carrying the business in the name and style of Chhagan Lal Dayalji rather the petitioner is running his business under the name and style of Chhaganlal Gopalji and also he carries his business under the name and style of Chhaganlal Madanlal Sons and Jewelers, hence petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail.

On the other hand learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail

Learned A.P.P has also filed the counter affidavit and stating therein that para 42 of the case diary petitioner''s name Santosh Kumar Verma and Santosh Kumar Soni is one person and he change his name and cheated several persons and para 51 of the case diary I.O has investigated the Adhar card and license name has been mentioned Santosh Verma, S/o Chhagan Lal Verma but in the sale deed name has been mentioned Santosh Prasad Soni, S/o Gopal Pd. Soni.

Taking all these facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.