Nitish Gada vs The State of Karnataka

Aravind Kumar

Petitioner who has been arraigned as accused in Crime No. 46/2012 registered by town police station, Bidar for offence punishable under sections 63 and 65 of Copyright Act, 1957 read with section 420 of I.P.C. is seeking for being enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in the said criminal case registered against him. Heard Sri. K.M. Ghate, Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and Smt. Anuradha Desai, learned Addl. SPP appearing for the State. Perused the records.

A complaint came to be lodged on 06.06.2012 by the Senior Manager, Accounts of "Havells India Limited" by its authorised representative complaining that petitioner who is the owner of M/s. Shri. Sangameshwar Electricals has indulged in marketing, distributing, stocking, selling brand of the complainant by copying the art work and description of "Havells" and infringing the complainant-company''s Intellectual Property Rights It was also alleged in the complaint that general public have been duped and the accused has also caused loss of revenue to the Government by indulging in such acts. It is further alleged that petitioner is marketing the goods manufactured by him by duplicating the complainant''s mark "HAVELLS". On such complaint being lodged same came to be registered by jurisdictional police as stated herein supra.

Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is a reputed businessmen dealing in electrical items from past 10 to 12 years and though two months have lapsed from the date of lodging of complaint, details of other accused persons has not been furnished and on account of business competition in the open market and to cause harassment to the petitioner, a false complaint has been lodged and as such Learned Counsel seeks for petitioner being enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest.

Per contra, learned Addl. SPP would support the case of the prosecution and submits that more than 24 boxes of duplicate products were seized from the custody of petitioner. Since it is at the investigation stage custodial interrogation is required and as such petitioner is avoiding and evading arrest and it involves financial implications not only to the complainant but also loss of revenue to the Government and as such she prays for dismissal of the petition. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the complaint as also material made available, it is noticed that complaint in question is lodged for infringement of a copyright. On the basis of the said complaint dated 06.06.2012 the jurisdictional police have registered a criminal case under sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957 read with section 420 of IPC. Said offence is neither punishable with death or life imprisonment and petitioner being permanent resident of Bidar town having deep roots in the society this Court is of the considered view that in the event of petitioner being enlarged on bail, the chances of petitioner absconding from the jurisdiction of the court would be too remote and taking into consideration the allegations made in the complaint this Court is of the view if strict conditions are imposed on the petitioner it would secure the presence of petitioner and as such the following order is passed:

ORDER

Criminal Petition is hereby allowed.

Petitioner shall surrender before the Town Police Station, Bidar on or before 01.09.2012 and he shall be enlarged on bail by the Town Police Station, Bidar on petitioner furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two surieties for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each.

Petitioner shall not leave the municipal limits of Bidar town till filing of the charge sheet without express permission from the jurisdictional court.

Petitioner shall appear before the town police station, Bidar every day at 11.30 a.m. to mark his attendance without fail till filing of the charge sheet.

Petitioner shall not terrorize or induce the prosecution witnesses.

Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigating officer and in the event of his non-co-operation the prosecution would be at liberty to seek cancellation of this bail order.