1. By this application, the applicant - original accused has prayed for the following reliefs :

"(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant this application;

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to delete the condition no.8 of the order dated 20.5.2017 passed by the Ld. Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Criminal Misc. Application No.567 of 2017, in the interest of justice;

(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the condition no.8 of the order dated 20.5.2017 passed by the Ld. Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Criminal Misc. Application No.567 of 2017, pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, in the interest of justice;

(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such other and further relief(s), as are deemed fit, in the interest of justice;"

2. The applicant-accused came to be arrested in connection with the First Information Report being CR-I No.57 of 2017 registered at the Lagnaj Police Station, District Mehsana, for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 63, 65, 68A of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Sections 101, 102, 103, 104 and 105 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

3. The applicant was ordered to be released on regular bail vide order dated 20th May 2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, in the Criminal Misc. Application No.567 of 2017. The Court below thought fit to impose certain conditions while releasing the applicant on bail. One of those conditions reads as under :

"(8) Applicant/accused shall not used any similar Registered Trade Mark used by GMBELL Healthcare (India) Private Ltd. till the final order of the present criminal case."

4. The applicant being dissatisfied, or rather, aggrieved by imposition of the condition referred to above, is here with this application with a prayer to delete the condition.

5. Mr.Thacker, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that the Court below could not have imposed such a condition as the same would amount to grant of injunction which only a civil court has the jurisdiction. The learned counsel would submit that the condition in question could be termed as onerous and unreasonable and beyond the parameters prescribed under Sections 437(3) and 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the following decisions of the Supreme Court :

(1) Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013)15 SCC 570;

(2) Dinbandhu v. State of Bihar and another, (2011)13 SCC 618;

(3) Munish Bhasin and others v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi and another), (2009)4 SCC 45.

7. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel prays that there being merit in this application, the same be allowed and the condition no.8 imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana, referred to above be deleted.

8. On the other hand, this application has been vehemently opposed by Mr.Falgun Brahmbhatt, the learned counsel appearing for the original first informant as well as by the learned APP appearing for the State of Gujarat.

9. The learned counsel submitted that the condition imposed could be termed as reasonable. The condition cannot be said to be onerous or unreasonable and the same effectuates the object of imposing conditions, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.

10. Mr.Brahmbhatt, the learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to an order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) dated 28th October 2010 below Exh.5 in the Regular Civil Suit No.29 of 2008 filed by the original first informant for injunction, damages and accounts of profit under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Copyright Act, 1957.

11. It was further pointed out that the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge restraining the applicant herein from using and committing the act of 'passing off' the plaintiff's trade mark came to be affirmed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 30t