Case Analysis; Piyush Subhashbhai Ranipa Versus The State of Maharashtra
[I]General Introduction-
1. Concept of Anticipatory Bail
Anticipatory Bail is a legal relief and direction to
release an arrested person on bail. If a person believes that he may be arrested
for a non-bailable offence; one may apply for AnticipatoryBailonly before High
Court or Sessions Court. Anticipatory Bail or pre-arrest bail is issued before the arrest. While granting Anticipatory Bail, the court may impose certain conditions in the interest of justice.
2. Provision for Anticipatory Bail
Section 438 of the Criminal procedure code (Cr. P.C),
empowers the High Court and Sessions CourtAnticipatory Bail.
Stating direction for grant of bail to
person apprehending arrest.
(1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be
arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may
apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this
section; and that Court may if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such
arrest, he shall be released on bail.
(2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such
directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think
fit, including-
(i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for
interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or
indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to
the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India
without the previous permission of the Court;
(iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-
section (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section.
(3) If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by
an officer in charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared
either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such
officer to give bail, be shall be released on bail; and if a Magistrate taking
cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should issue in the first
instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity
with the direction of the Court under sub-section (1).
[II] Introduction of the case
Present Anticipatory Bail application under section 438
Cr. P.C has been filed by the applicant, PiyushRanipa seeking bail in C.R.No. 865 of
2020 registered with Mohol Police Station, District Solapur, for the offences
punishable under sections 418,465, 482, 483, 485, 486, 488 r/w 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and under section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (
Copyright Act) and section 103 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 ( Trade Marks Act).
Prakash Gore, Zonal Manager of Jain Irrigation The system received several complaints regarding substandard goods in name of said
company. The informant received secret information about the truck bearing
registration number (GJ03/BV-9840) was carrying counterfeit goods from Gujrat
to Karnataka. The Informant saw the vehicle carrying counterfeit goods on
19/12/2020, at about 4.pm. and made an inquiry with the driver who informed that
goods were loaded from Tera-flow Company Ribda and was travelling to Chadchan. Invoice is seen by informant which mentioned about four HDPE pipes worth Rs. 94,485/-.
Some goods displayed mark ‘Jain HDPE’ and a forged stamp of CML (Certificate
Manufacturing Licence) 7018761 on it. The goods possessed a fake trademark on
them therefore, First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by the complainant and
goods were seized after investigation.
A single bench of Justice Kotwal, while hearing an anticipatory Bail application of Piyush Ranipa, accused of manufacturing and
attempting to sell irrigation pipes under the name and trademark of the complainant’s company without any authority noted that, the non-IPC offences punishable with
imprisonment up to 3 years will be categorized as cognizable and non-bailable
offences.
[III] Issues
1.
Whether offences
punishable up to three years are bailable or non-bailable?
2.
Whether the offence under section 63 of the Copyright Act and also subsequently applied Section
103 of the Trade Mark Act are bailable or non-bailable?
3.
Whether there is
infringement of the Copyright Act appealing punishment under section 63 of
Copyright Act?
4.
Whether bail can
be granted with respect to sections under which the applicant is booked are
bailable?
[IV]Findings by Court
1. Bare
reading of Part II of the Schedule-I of Cr. P.C shows if the offences in the
other laws are punishable with imprisonment for three years and upwards then
the offences are cognizable and non-bailable.
2. Offences
under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and section 103 of the Trade Mark Act are
non-bailable and the application of Anticipatory Bail is maintainable under the
nature of non-bailable offences.
3. The applicant has not claimed any certificate registered under The Copyright Act
mentioning the informant’s product and trademark registration number. Therefore
provision under section 110(b) of the Trade Mark Act is not available to the
applicant.
4. In the present case, no question seeking the opinion of the registrar for trademark
arises because the accused used the same number under which the trademark was registered in
name of the informant’s company.
5. Statement
of co-accused revealed that the goods were manufactured at the applicant’s unit.
[V] Court’s order
Justice Kotwal held, wherever it is possible to
impose the punishment extending to three years, the category provided under
Part II of Schedule-I of Cr. P.C which states that “the offences in the other
laws are punishable with imprisonment for three years and upwards the offences
are cognizable and bailable” would apply in this case because it is possible to
impose a sentence of exactly three years, such offences will be non-bailable.
The court ascertained infringement of trademark registered
in the name of informant’s company and commission of an offence punishable under
sections 103 of the Trade Mark Act was clearly pointed out. The court also stated that the act of accused of falsely applied the informant’s trademark attempted to sell those products which amounted to offence under section 420 r/w 511 of IPC. The court concluded that offences in which the sentence of imprisonment which can be extended to three years
are non-bailable in nature.
The Court held that, custodial interrogation of
accused was required and the pre-arrest application was rejected by Bombay High Court, resulting in rejection of relief of Pre-arrest bail to the applicant and
rejected his counsel’s plea to continue interim protection considering the
progress of the investigation.
[VI]Conclusion
The Bombay High Court has reemphasized that non-IPC offences punishable up to 3 years of imprisonment will be categorized as cognizable and non-bailable.
In this particular case, the authority to manufacture and pass goods was not with the accused and the consumers were led to believe that the products were manufactured by the informant’s company. The Accused tried to use the trademark with the same number allotted to the informant and did not copy the actual trademark which was similar in nature to the one which is registered in the informant’s name, without any certificate registered under the Copyright Act which amounted to offences under IPC, Trade Mark Act and Copyright Act.
The Bombay High Court has held that the offence of infringement under the Copyright Act and falsely applying for a trademark under the Trademark Act are non-bailable offences as the punishment imposed is up to three years and can be “exact three years”
By,
Dhwani Naikwadi
Intern Team K&T Forlex
Mumbai | Pune | New Delhi |
Singapore | Shanghai
#ktforlex #law #legal #Bail #Arrest #Court #Intellectual Property#Copyright #TradeMark
K&T Forlex Pvt Ltd is an
international business and corporate consultation firm operating from 5 cities
across the globe. You may reach us at www.ktforlex.com or email us on
info@ktforlex.com.
Links referred
https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=application%20for%20anticipatory%20bail&pagenum=7
Comments
Post a Comment