Allowed¶18

Asmit Kumar @ Sajan Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC10 Jan 2025CR. MISC./36890/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail granted; copyright/product duplication of Tulsi Zarda; Sections 63/65 Copyright Act; Section 420 IPC; Section 437(3) CrPC bail conditions; bail bonds Rs. 30,000 with two like sureties; deposit of Rs. 50,000 before Trial Court; Mithanpura P.S. Case No. 545 of 2023, Muzaffarpur; Patna High Court Criminal Miscellaneous No. 36890 of 2024; Justice Dr. Anshuman; decided 10-01-2025.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted to the petitioner, after framing of charge if not framed, on bail bonds of Rs. 30,000 with two sureties of the like amount each and on deposit of Rs. 50,000 before the Trial Court, subject to the result of the case, to the satisfaction of J.M. Ist Class, Muzaffarpur (East), and subject to conditions under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C. ¶18

Asmit Kumar @ Sajan Kumar Vs the State of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, accused in Mithanpura P.S. Case No. 545 of 2023 under Section 420 IPC and Sections 63/65 of the Copyright Act for alleged duplication and sale of the Tulsi Zarda product, is entitled to regular bail.

¶12

Court's answer

Petitioner granted regular bail in connection with Mithanpura P.S. Case No. 545 of 2023, after framing of charge (if not framed), on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 30,000 with two sureties of the like amount each and on deposit of Rs. 50,000 before the Trial Court, subject to the result of the case, to the satisfaction of J.M. Ist Class, Muzaffarpur (East).

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Bail granted subject to the conditions laid down under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.

¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Dr. Anshuman, J.) allowed a regular bail application (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 36890 of 2024) arising from Mithanpura P.S. Case No. 545 of 2023 (Muzaffarpur), in which the petitioner was accused under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 63/65 of the Copyright Act for allegedly discreetly duplicating and selling the 'Tulsi Zarda' product. Bail was granted after framing of charge (if not framed), on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 30,000 with two sureties of the like amount each and on deposit of Rs. 50,000 before the Trial Court, subject to the result of the case, to the satisfaction of J.M. Ist Class, Muzaffarpur (East), and subject to the conditions laid down under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C. Counsel for the State had opposed the bail prayer, noting that on conviction under the Copyright Act the minimum fine is Rs. 50,000 and the maximum fine is Rs. 2,50,000.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36890 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-545 Year-2023 Thana- MITHANPURA District- Muzaffarpur

¶3

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

¶4

Asmit Kumar @ Sajan Kumar S/O Late Bansilal Prasad @ Bansi Mahto R/O Mohalla- Ramjanaki Lane Mahelia Gali @ Jehali Gali, Sikanderpur, Near Rani Sati Mandir, P.S- Town, Distt.- Muzaffarpur.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Bihar & Anr. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Advocate Ms. Divya Bharti, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP ======================================================

¶8

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER

¶9

8 10-01-2025

¶10

Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned

¶11

APP for the State are present. However, no one appears on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2, in spite of the fact that on the previous occasion, Mr. Sunil Singh, learned Advocate submits that he has received the vakalatnama on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2.

¶12

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Mithanpura P.S. Case No. 545 of 2023, lodged on 06.12.2023, under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 63/65 of the Copyright Act.

¶13

As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been lodged against two named accused persons who are alleged to

¶14

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36890 of 2024(8) dt.10-01-2025 2/3

¶15

have been discreetly duplicating the Tulsi Zarda product and the same was being sold by them.

¶16

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is unnecessarily being made accused in this case. Counsel submits that the criminal antecedent of the petitioner is clean and he has been made accused in this case under compelling circumstances, though, he admits that the allegation of Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act is there.

¶17

Learned Counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that under the Copyright Act, the minimum fine is Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only) and the maximum fine is Rs. 2,50,000/- ( Two Lakh Fifty Thousand only) in case of conviction.

¶18

In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, let the petitioner above named, be granted bail, after framing of charge, if not framed , on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each as well as on deposit of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only) before the Trial Court subject to result of the case, to the

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36890 of 2024(8) dt.10-01-2025 3/3

¶20

satisfaction of J.M. Ist Class, Muzaffarpur (East), in connection with Mithanpura P.S. Case No. 545 of 2023, subject to the following conditions as laid down under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.

¶21

(Dr. Anshuman, J)

¶22

Aman Kumar/-

¶23

U T

Asmit Kumar @ Sajan Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asmit Kumar @ Sajan Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kundan Saw @ Kundan Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Nishant Kumar @ Kare Lal Vs The State of Bihar

Sonam Kumar Yadav @ Priyadarshi Raj @ Priyadarshi Vs The State of Bihar

Subheshwar Tiwary @ Sumeshwar Tiwari Vs the State of Bihar

Abdul Majid @ Majid Vs The State of Bihar

Santosh Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar