Allowed

Rakesh Kumar @ Danveer Yadav v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC16 Feb 2022CR. MISC./11800/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving Sections 420 IPC, 63 of the Copyright Act, and 103/104 of the Trade Mark Act. The petitioner was directed to be released on personal bonds within twelve weeks, with a condition to furnish cash bonds and sureties once normalcy is restored.

What did the court decide?

Release on anticipatory bail on personal bonds subject to furnishing cash bonds and sureties within twelve weeks and later upon restoration of normalcy.

Rakesh Kumar @ Danveer Yadav Vs the State of Bihar — Intellectual Property | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11800 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-65 Year-2020 Thana- BYPASS District- Patna

¶3

======================================================

¶4

RAKESH KUMAR @ DANVEER YADAV S/o Kedar Rai R/o villageKachchi Dargah, P.S.- Nadi, District- Patna

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State Of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Uday Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A.G. ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

2 16-02-2022

¶13

Due to the third wave of COVID-19 Pandemic, the

¶14

matter is being taken up by way of Virtual Court proceeding.

¶15

The matter has been listed under the heading ‘For Orders’ under the orders of Hon’ble the Chief Justice.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through virtual mode.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove the defects, as pointed out by the Office, within a period of four weeks after restoration of normalcy.

¶18

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 63 of Copy Right Act and 103/104 of Trade Mark Act.

¶19

The prosecution allegation, in short, is that the product of the informant and its wrapper was recovered from the

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11800 of 2021(2) dt.16-02-2022 2/3

¶21

petitioner.

¶22

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has been made accused due to mistake of fact. The case has been instituted in respect of Copy Right Act and Trade Mark Act. There is a dispute between the parties relating to the Trade Mark Act. The said allegation is denied by the petitioner. There is a difference between the trade mark of the informant’s company and the trade mark of the petitioner’s company. Other co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail vide Annexure-2 to the present application by a Coordinate Bench of this Court.

¶23

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R.

¶24

It is necessary to indicate here that this Court while considering the prayer made in the present anticipatory bail application has taken note of the exponential rise in number of covid cases due to outbreak of third wave of Covid-19 pandemic. Further this Court can also not lose sight of the fact that the condition of jails is not conducive and suitable to the present situation which has arisen due to the sudden rise in

¶25

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11800 of 2021(2) dt.16-02-2022 3/3

¶26

covid cases.

¶27

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest/surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on his personal bonds to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M.,Patna City in connection with By Pass P.S. Case No. 65/2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶28

Once the normalcy is restored, the petitioner shall furnish bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each within a period of eight weeks to the satisfaction of the Court concerned in connection with the aforesaid case.

¶29

(Sudhir Singh, J)

¶30

Pankaj/-

¶31

U T

Rakesh Kumar @ Danveer Yadav v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar @ Danveer Yadav v. the State of Bihar

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

Shiv Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Bihar

Dilip Jha @ Dilip Kumar Jha Vs the State of Bihar

Jyoti Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Khalid Alam Vs The Bihar State Bihar

Shankar Singh @ Shankar Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Dharmendra Kumar Vs the State of Bihar