2020 (1) TMI 834 - HC - GST

Enlargement on Bail - procedure for disposal of rejected Fabric/bags of bags - whole prosecution case against the applicant is without jurisdiction and vitiated under law - HELD THAT - Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail. Bail application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Enlargement on bail during trial in a case involving allegations of printing unauthorized cement bags of various companies, violation of Trade Marks Act, and Copy Right Act.

Detailed Analysis:
The applicant, involved in a criminal case under various sections of the Indian Penal Code along with the Copy Right Act and Trade Marks Act, sought bail during the trial. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was engaged in printing unauthorized cement bags of several well-known companies. The informant, an Assistant Manager at a company, lodged an FIR accusing the applicant of being present at a factory where a large quantity of duplicate cement bags and other materials were discovered. The applicant claimed to be the owner of the factory, registered as a dealer, and engaged in legitimate business activities. The defense argued that the applicant purchased defective bags from other firms, converted them into marketable products, and paid the necessary taxes on the goods. The defense also highlighted agreements between certain companies regarding the disposal of rejected bags. The defense contended that the search and seizure of goods by the police violated specific provisions of the Trade Marks Act. Additionally, it was argued that the case did not constitute infringement under the Copy Right Act and that the prosecution's case lacked jurisdiction and was legally flawed. The defense emphasized the applicant's innocence, portraying him as a law-abiding businessman unjustly implicated in the case.

The court, after considering the facts, nature of the offense, evidence, and arguments presented by both parties, granted bail to the applicant. The court imposed several conditions on the bail, including refraining from tampering with evidence, harming the victim/complainant, following court orders, attending all trial dates promptly, abstaining from unlawful activities, and not misusing the bail liberty. The court emphasized that the bail conditions were imposed in the interest of justice and warned that any breach would lead to bail cancellation and imprisonment. The court clarified that its decision on the bail application did not reflect an opinion on the case's merits and that the trial court would independently assess the evidence presented without influence from the bail order.