Allowed

Sri Manikchand v. State by Tumkur Town Police Station

Karnataka HC7 Dec 2021CRL.P/8842/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for bail. The petitioner was accused of selling duplicate cables and was absconding. The court imposed conditions including appearance before the magistrate, address proof, non-tampering with witnesses, cooperation with investigation, and appearing at trial dates.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be released from arrest subject to conditions of personal bond executing within one week, addressing court, informing of address changes, not tampering with witnesses, cooperating with i

Sri Manikchand Vs State by Tumkur Town Police Station — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8842/2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. MANIKCHAND S/O BASTIMAL, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT NO.3389, 4TH CROSS, C BLOCK, GAYATHRI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 021. [BY SRI. S.KUMAR, ADVOCATE - (PH)]

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE BY TUMKUR TOWN POLICE STATION, TUMKUR DISTRICT,

¶11

REPRESENTED BY HCGP, HCK, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

[BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR, HCGP -(PH)]

¶14

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.63/2019 OF TUMKUR TOWN P.S., TUMAKURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420,483,486,34 OF IPC, SEC.63,65 OF COPYRIGHT ACT AND SEC.103,104,107 OF TRADE MARKS ACT AND ETC.

¶16

¶17

THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING;

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State and perused the material on record.

¶20

Charge sheet has been filed against accused Nos.1 to 3 in connection with crime No.63/2019 of Tumkur Town police station, for offence punishable under Sections 420, 483, 468, 34 of IPC, Sections 63 and 65 of Copyright Act 1957, Sections 103, 104, 107 of Trade Marks Act 1999.

¶21

It is the case of prosecution that accused No.1 was selling duplicate cable wires in the name of Finolex company, brought from the shop of accused Nos.2 and 3 with an intention of cheating the customers and thus the accused persons have committed the charge sheeted offence.

¶22

Learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that the FSL report shows that the cable wires are duplicate and not of Finolex company. He contends that the petitioner has been absconding and he has not co-operated with the investigation.

¶23

¶24

The FIR was registered against the shop owner of one Padmini Enterprises, on a complaint lodged by one Mayur Gautam. Petitioner is arraigned as accused No.3 in the charge sheet. His name is not found in the First Information Report. The allegations are that, the petitioner was manufacturing the duplicate cable wires by putting the name of Finolex company and both accused Nos.2 and 3 were selling it to accused No.1 and all of them were operating the illegal business by selling duplicate cables. The said allegations have to be proved during the course of trial. The petitioner has undertaken to abide by the conditions and also to regularly appear before the trial Court. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

¶25

In the facts and circumstances, the relief sought by the petitioner can be granted by imposing conditions. Hence, the following:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Petition is allowed.

¶28

In the event of arrest of the petitioner/accused No.3 in

¶29

crime No.63/2019 of Tumkur Town police station, now pending in C.C. No.9646/2021 before Principal Senior Civil

¶30

¶31

Judge and CJM, Tumkur, he shall be released subject to following conditions:

¶32

i) Petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for like-sum.

¶33

ii) Petitioner shall furnish proof of his residential address and shall inform the I.O/Court, in case of change in the address.

¶34

iii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/indirectly.

¶35

iv) Petitioner shall co-operate with further investigation of the case, if any; and

¶36

v) Petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on all dates of hearing without fail.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Sri Manikchand v. State by Tumkur Town Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manikchand v. State by Tumkur Town Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sundarlinge Gowda @ Pille Vs State of Karnataka through Koppa Police

M/S. Paxal Surgicals Vs Sri. Ashok Kumar

M/S Jyoti Enterprises Vs A1 Roofings

Rohith Gowda K Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Manjappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Srinivas Vs State of Karnataka