Santosh Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 02 Dec 2024
- Bench
- RAJESH SHANKAR
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 420
- Copyright Act, 1957 ss. 63, 65
- Trade Marks Act, 1999 ss. 103, 104
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 482(2)
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within…
Judgment
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : For the State : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate Ms. Supriya Dayal, Advocate Ms. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P. ----- Order No.05 Date: 02.12.2024
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Ranka P.S. Case no.51 of 2024 registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 63 & 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act,
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. Even as per the written report of the informant, it would be evident that the petitioner used to supply empty plastic packets of “Chana Sattu” & “Besan” with logo of “Fortuner” to the co-accused-Bajrang Prasad Gupta @ Bajrang Gupta. The petitioner has been roped in the present case merely on the alleged disclosure made by the said co-accused from whose house there was alleged recovery of few empty plastic packets of “Chana Sattu” & “Besan” and filled packets of “Chana Sattu” & “Besan” with logo of “Fortuner” as well as packing machine. In fact, the petitioner is not at all involved in commission of the alleged offence. Except the alleged disclosure of the aforesaid co-accused there is no other material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. He is merely a staff in a cosmetic shop situated at Patna. He, however, undertakes co-operate in the ongoing investigation. Hence, he may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned A.P.P. opposes the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within three weeks from today, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Garhwa in connection with Ranka P.S. Case no.51 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Arpit/ (Rajesh Shankar, J.) -2- A.B.A. No.7185 of 2024
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 420; Copyright Act, 1957 — ss. 63, 65; Trade Marks Act, 1999 — ss. 103, 104; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Jharkhand High Court, on 02 Dec 2024. The bench was RAJESH SHANKAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.