Tunna Munna Kumar @ Tunna Munna Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64925 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-509 Year-2020 Thana- HILSA District- Nalanda ====================================================== TUNNA MUNNA KUMAR @ TUNNA MUNNA PRASAD S/O SOHABAN RAI @ RAM SOHABAN RAI R/O VILLAGE- KAUSHIK NAGAR, PS. HILSA, DIST. NALANDA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Lovekush Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Surendra Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 19-03-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Hilsa P.S. Case No.509 of 2020, registered for the offence punishable under sections 419, 420 of the I.P.C., sections 63, 64 and 65 of Copyright Act and sections 103 and 104 of Indian Trade Mark Act.

3.

Allegedly, a raid was conducted in the shop of the petitioner. Huge number of fake bottles of rose water, empty bottles of Rose water, fake wrappers of Dabar India Limited Company, fake wrappers of Rose water, fake Oil of Dabar India Company Limited and other articles have been recovered from his shop.

4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64925 of 2023(5) dt.19-03-2024 2/2 petitioner is quite innocent and has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to business rivalry. No fake articles of any brand have been recovered from the shop of the petitioner or from his conscious physical possession. It is submitted that the petitioner was granted the benefit of section 41(a) of the Cr.P.C. and after investigation, the police has filed charge sheet against the petitioner. There is no allegation against the petitioner to tamper the evidence. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

5.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail. 6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and that the recovery has been made from the shop of the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on his behalf is hereby rejected. 7.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

8.

However, petitioner is at liberty to surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks and seek regular bail and the learned Court below would pass order, preferably, on the same day, in accordance with law. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) pallavi/- U T