Barvadiya Rameshbhai v. State By, Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

1. Barvadiya Rameshbhai

2. Barvadiya Sagar

3. Sukhanandan Das Petitioner(s) Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by Inspector of Police M-2, Madhavaram Milk Colony Police Station, Tiruvallur District.

Crime No.129 of 2025 Respondent(s) PRAYER This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioner accused on bail in the event of arrest by the respondent in Crime No.129 of 2025.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.E.Kishore Kumar For Respondent(s):

Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Govt Advocate (Crl Side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent

police for the offences punishable under Section 318(4), 350(2) of BNS and 51(b), & 63 of Copy Rights Act 1957 in Crime No.129 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that petitioners allegedly manufactured duplicate products, specifically Harpic, Lizol, and Dettol, prompting the defacto complainant/Mr.Sathees Kumar, Power of Attorney for M/s.Reckitt Benckiser(India) Pvt. Ltd., to file a case. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution's case and opposed for grant of

anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the nature of the allegations and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and since, custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not required, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 7.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate at Madhavaram on condition that the each of petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the

learned Magistrate concerned, and on proof of payment of deposits, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

[a] if the petitioners fails to surrender before the said Magistrate within a period of fifteen days, this Order shall stand automatically cancelled;

[b] The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the Application for Suretyship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity;

[c] the petitioners shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation; [d] the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the defacto complainant and witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] the petitioners shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police office as and when required; [f] the petitioners to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for Police custody beyond the first fifteen days, he shall comply to the

directions as may be given by the Court in this regard; [g] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[h] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

[i] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

14.07.2025 jai To 1.The Inspector of Police M-2, Madhavaram Milk Colony Police Station,Tiruvallur District.

2, The Judicial Magistrate at Madhavaram

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

jai CRL OP No. 16054 of 14.07.2025