Sonu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65933 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-376 Year-2024 Thana- LAKHISARAI District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Sonu Kumar Son of Bindeshwari Mahto village- Pratapur, Ward no. 4, Pshalsi, Dist- Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bhim Sen Prasad, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 03-10-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 376 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 63, 65 of the Copy Right Act.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the basis of secret information about illegal sale of articles with sticker of Crompton, when the informant reached at the shop of the petitioner, total 74 pieces of H.P. Pump starter box with sticker of Crompton company have been recovered.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. No such occurrence as alleged has ever taken place. He has falsely been implicated in the present case due to ulterior

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65933 of 2024(2) dt.03-10-2024 2/2 motive. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is totally false and based on concocted facts. The real fact is that the petitioner himself was cheated by the agent of the company who always supplied the material to him. He had no knowledge about the articles being duplicate. Hence, no offence under Copy Right Act is made out against the petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para 3 of the bail application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

7. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.

8. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seeks regular bail, the learned Court below shall pass order on the same day in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order considering the fact that petitioner has no criminal antecedent. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T