Patna High CourtCR. MISC./32184/2021bail rejected

Raju Pandit v. The State Of Bihar

2022-03-24Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32184 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-122 Year-2021 Thana- KHAJANCHI HAT District- Purnia ====================================================== 1.

Raju Pandit, S/o Late Ramlakhan Pandit 2.

Manoj Kumar Pandit @ Manoj Kumar S/o Raju Pandit Both Resident of Harda, P.S.- K. Hat Maranga, Distt.- Purnia ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anil Prasad Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 24-03-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned APP for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 420 of the IPC read with Sections 63,64,65 of the Copyright Act,1957 and Sections 103/104 of the Indian Trade Mark Act,1999 registered in connection with K. Hat Maranga P.S. Case No.122 of 2021.

The informant is the examiner deputed from the Dabur Indian Limited. He got information that some fake products of Dabur were being manufactured. He along with police personnel rushed to the house of the present petitioners

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32184 of 2021(2) dt.24-03-2022 2/2 where fake rose water and 735 piece of bottles of 100 ml. each filled with rose water and some other products and Marico company were also recovered.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners were not arrested at the spot and the copy of seizure list was not provided to the family members of the petitioners. The huge quantity of fake products of renowned brand was recovered from the house of the petitioners. In my opinion, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

Office shall ensure that all the defects are removed by the petitioners within the stipulated time as provided hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Prakash Narayan /- U T