High Court
Case Details
1 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49498 of 2022 Applicant :- Dhruv Arora Alias Boby Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar,Saurabh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raghuvansh Misra Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. 1. Heard Mr. V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Vijay Kumar & Mr. Saurabh Pandey for the applicant and Mr. Vinay Saran, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Raghuvansh Mishra for the informant-opposite party as well as learned AGA for State. 2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 4 of 2022, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 486, 120 B IPC and Section 102, 103, 104 of Trade Mark Act and Section 63, 64 of Copyright Act, Police Station- Govind Nagar, District – Kanpur Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the present crime. The brief prosecution story is that the informant is a Proprietor of the firm ‘Gopal Herbal’ and he allegedly came to know that named accused persons are producing and selling spurious products by using trademark/ hallmark of the informant’s firm and when the raid to the said effect was conducted huge quantity of pirated spurious products/ drugs have been recovered. He further submitted that the applicant was not named in the First Information Report and he has been implicated on the alleged confession of the co-accused persons. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. There is no independent witness of the alleged recovery of spurious product/ medicines. The applicant has no knowledge about 2 the fraud being committed by the named accused persons. The applicant is permanent handicapped person from both of his lower limbs. On the similar allegations the applicant has earlier implicated in Case Crime No. 11 of 2022, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 IPC and P.S. Surajkund, Distt. Haryana in which the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District-Faridabad vide order dated 18.2.2022. Apart from the aforesaid case, the applicant has no other criminal history. It is further submitted that considering the entire facts and circumstances of the present case and on the similar set of allegations, the co-accused persons namely Smt. Seema Singh and Gaurav Mishra were enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 9.6.2022 and 2.9.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23489 of 2022 and 14872 of 2022, respectively. Accordingly, the applicant is also entitled for grant of bail. He further submitted that there was no F.S.L. report which proves that the alleged recovered products were adulterated or spurious. It is also submitted that there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, the applicant may flee from the course of law or may, otherwise, misuse the liberty of bail and the applicant is in jail since 17.9.2022 and the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is very bleak. 4. Per contra, Mr. Vinay Saran, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail. He submitted that the applicant is a part of organized crime and he is selling the spurious product / medicine without there being authority. The applicant is neither the agent of the company of the informant nor having any valid license to sell the product of the company. He further submits that F.S.L. report in respect of the lables proves that labels found in the factory are duplicate. There were bank transactions between the applicant and the co-accused, which proves the involvement of the applicant. The C.D.R. also reveals that the applicant and the co-accused were in touch as such applicant has full nexus in the present crime. He further submitted that earlier the 3 applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail but he again involve in selling the spurious medicine as such he is not entitled for grant of bail. He further relied upon the judgement of Apex Court in C.B.I. Vs. Vijay Sai Reddy, 2013 0 SC 470. He further submits that the role of the applicant is different from the co-accused, who have been granted bail by this Court as such the applicant cannot seek their parity and therefore applicant does not deserve to be bailed out and his bail application is liable to be rejected outrightly. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. 6. Let applicant, namely, Dhruv Arora alias Boby, be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime Number on furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that the applicant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. In case of absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against the applicant under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure the applicant's presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against the applicant, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) 4 framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If, in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against the applicant in accordance with law. 7. Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail. Order Date :- 23.12.2022 Rahul Dwivedi/- (Piyush Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad