Back
2001 Supreme(Pat) 406
PATNA HIGH COURT
M.L.Visa, J.
Anil Kumar Gupta
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 30306 of 2000 ;
Decided On : MAY 03, 2001
Cancellation of bail requires very cogent and overwhelming circumstances and should not be done in a mechanical manner without considering supervening circumstances.
Headnote:
Cancellation of Bail - Copyright Act - IPC 467, 468, 471, 420, 120B - 63 of Copyright Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite parties who were accused of making duplicate copies and selling publications under the petitioner's authority. The accused were granted bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, under the impression that only the offense under section 63 of the Copyright Act was bailable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were no cogent and overwhelming circumstances requiring the cancellation of bail granted to the opposite parties. It noted that there was no evidence of misuse of the privilege of bail or any possibility of the accused absconding.
Issues: The main issue was whether the bail granted to the opposite parties should be cancelled based on the nature of the offenses and the circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principle that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for the cancellation of bail already granted. It emphasized that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering supervening circumstances.
Final Decision: The court found no merit in the application and dismissed it.
1. This application by the petitioner has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to Opposite party Nos. 2 to 9 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in Kotwali PS Case No. 337 of 2000 under sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC) and section 63 of the Copyright Act.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this application are that petitioner is the Circulation Officer of M/s Chronical Publications Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi and on 19.9.2000 he had come to Patna in connection with some work of the Company when he learnt that some persons after making duplicate copies and printing several hundreds of those copies of several publications having good reputation in the market published under the authority of the Company of the petitioner were selling the same in the market. On enquiry he came to know that the books on the subject of history and general knowledge, both in question and answer forms after preparing duplicate copies were being sold by opposite party Nos. 2 to 9 in the market. The petitioner filed a written complaint in Kotwali Police Station on 19.9.2000 and Kotwali P.S Case No. 337 of 2000 under sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120B IPC and 63 of Copyright Act was registered (Annexure-1). During the course of investigation hundreds of duplicate copies of books allegedly printed and published by the Company of petitioner were recovered from several places and from the custody of opposite party nos. 2 to 9 who were arrested and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, who granted bail to them by his orders dated 25.9.2000 and 26.9.2000. According to the petitioner, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna granted bail to Opposite party Nos. 2 to 9 under mistaken impression that only offence under section 63 of Copyright Act was made out which is, in his opinion, bailable, whereas the fact is that this offence is non-bailable and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, did not consider the fact that allegations attracted section 468 IPC also.
3. Opposite party Nos. 2 to 9 have appeared by filing vakalatnama and two separate counter affidavitsone on behalf of Opposite party nos. 3, 4, 5 and 8 and another on behalf of Opposite party no. 7. Opposite party nos. 3, 4, 5 and 8 in their counter affidavit have stated that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna after considering the allegations made in the FIR and the materials placed before him and after hearing the counsel of parties including the informant-petitioner and after being satisfied that it was the case for grant of bail, granted bail to opposite parties. Their further case is that although case was registered under sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120B IPC besides section 63 of Copyright Act but on bare perusal of the FIR shows that allegations are mainly with regard to violation of the provisions of Copyright Act and prosecution launched against them by petitioner is malafide, concocted and false. According to these opposite parties, the Company of petitioner publishes magazines, journals and books for competitive examinations and in order to get a foot-hold in the State of Bihar the Company contacted opposite party no. 2 and requested him to distribute the magazines, journals and books published by the Company and it started its business transactions through opposite party no. 2 from the year 1992 and opposite party no. 2 used to send money being the sale price of books and magazines as well as advance to three firms, namely, Chronical Publication Pvt. Ltd., Chronical Publication and Delhi Book Manufacturing Company and opposite party no. 2 has advanced a sum of Rs. 3,01,000/- through bank draft to Chronical Publication in the name of Delhi Book Manufacturing Company which has not been accounted for yet and he has also advanced a sum of Rs. 4,02,100/- to Chronical Publication for supply of magazines but the magazines have not been supplied and company of petitioner has misappropriated the money of opposite party n
