Allowed

Shihana.S v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Oct 2020Bail Appl./4313/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed anticipatory bail application for alleged offences under IPC and Copyright Act, directing surrender within two weeks and imposing conditions including prohibition on using the trademarked name and logo without registration.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed with conditional release on bond for Rs.50,000 and sureties; applicant must surrender within two weeks and refrain from using the contested name and logo.

Shihana.S Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 9TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl.No.4313 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.1610/2020 OF Chadayamanagalam Police Station , Kollam

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

SHIHANA.S AGED 39 YEARS, D/O.SAINUDEEN, RESIDING AT DARARUL ABRAR, PHARMACY JUNCTION, VETTIYARA P.O., NAVAYIKULAM, VARKALA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695 603.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.

¶12

2 LAL P.K. AGED 49 YEARS, S/O KUTHIYU, RESIDING AT PARAPPULLI HOUSE, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 010 (AS PER THE FIR).

¶13

R1 BY SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN, SR PP R2 BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD BY LAL P.K.(PARTY IN PERSON)

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl.No.4313 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Dated this the 1st day of October 2020

¶20

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶21

The applicant is the sole accused in Crime

¶22

No.1610/2020 of Chadayamangalam Police Station for

¶23

having allegedly committed the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 51(a) and 63 of the Copy Rights Act 1957.

¶24

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the

¶25

applicant illegally conducted a travel agency by name

¶26

and using the logo of “Akbar Travels”, which is

¶27

registered trademark of the firm of which the defacto complainant, is the Regional Manager.

¶28

The applicant states that the allegations are

¶29

false and it is also submitted that there is no offence

¶30

made out under Section 420 of the I.P.C. because the

¶31

applicant has not induced the defacto complainant to

¶32

deliver anything and cheated him and it is further

¶33

Bail Appl.No.4313 OF 2020

¶34

¶35

submitted that the offence under the Copyright Act is

¶36

also not attracted. Hence, the applicant seeks

¶37

anticipatory bail.

¶38

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the defacto complainant as also the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶39

After having considered the submissions and

¶40

perused documents, which are produced by the respondent and the applicant, I find that there is a similarity in

¶41

the logo and the name of the concern run by the

¶42

applicant. I am not entering into a discussion or finding regarding the maintainability of the offence under the Copyright Act. The applicant is willing to

¶43

cooperate with the investigation and is hardly to

¶44

abscond. It would suffice to state that the applicant can be granted anticipatory bail under certain conditions:

¶45

In the result, the bail application is allowed and

¶46

the applicant is directed to surrender before the

¶47

investigating officer within two weeks. After

¶48

Bail Appl.No.4313 OF 2020

¶49

¶50

interrogation and recovery if any, in the event of her being arrested, she shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on the following conditions:

¶51

(i) She shall not henceforth use the name and logo of “Akbar Travels (ambartravelsonline.com)” as produced by the defacto complainant unless a trademark is got registered by her through legal means;

¶52

ii) She shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence;

¶53

(iii)She shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for; and

¶54

(iv) During the bail period, she shall not get involved in any similar offences.

¶55

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the

¶56

prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for

¶57

Bail Appl.No.4313 OF 2020

¶58

¶59

cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional

court.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

dkr JUDGE

Shihana.S v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shihana.S v. State of Kerala

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

S Praveen Vs State of Kerala

Gopakumar Vs State of Kerala

Mukesh Gopinath Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Nazim K.S Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Sharafudheen Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Shahid Vs State of Kerala