Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Savitri Ratho, J.
Gopal Gupta - Appellant
Versus
State Of Odisha - Respondent
BLAPL No. 7236 of 2020
Decided On : 04-06-2021
BAIL - CRIMINAL - Cr.P.C - Sections 420/467/448/471/34 of I.P.C and Section 103 and 104 of Trade Mark Act, 1999
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Gopal Gupta, applied for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with a case involving offences under Sections 420/467/448/471/34 of I.P.C and Section 103 and 104 of Trade Mark Act, 1999. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was involved in adulteration of cooking oil and selling it under reputed brand names, which was found to be unfit for human consumption.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had been in custody for over a year and that further investigation was still pending. Considering the nature of the allegations, the materials collected by the investigating agency, and the resurgence of the Covid-19 pandemic, the court granted bail to the petitioner with specific conditions.
Issues: The issues involved the alleged involvement of the petitioner in adulteration of cooking oil and the suitability of granting bail considering the nature of the allegations and the period of detention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court balanced the nature of the offence, severity of the punishment, and the prima facie view of the involvement of the accused in determining the grant of bail. It also considered the period of detention, the materials collected by the investigating agency, and the resurgence of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the petitioner, Gopal Gupta, with specific conditions, including refraining from criminal activity, influencing prosecution witnesses, and tampering with evidence, as well as appearing before the police and the court as required.
ORDER
1. I have heard Mr. Bigyan Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.N Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State through Video Conferencing mode.
2. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner-Gopal Gupta in connection with Tangi P.S. Case No.12 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 168 of 2020 pending in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C.(R), Cuttack, registered for commission of offences under Sections 420/467/448 /471/34 of I.P.C and Section 103 and 104 of Trade Mark Act, 1999. Preliminary chargesheet dated 20.05.2020 has been submitted against the petitioner and his father Om Prakash Gupta for commission of offences punishable under Sec- 420/467/468/471/272/273/34 I.P.C keeping investigation open as verification reports from concerned Department is awaited and more clues are to be obtained.
3. This is the second journey of the petitioner to this Court. He had earlier filed BLAPL No.1664 of 2020 before this Court. In I.A.No 389 of 2020 arising out of the said application, he had been granted interim bail in vide order dated 26.05.2020 for a period of fifteen days and the same had been extended for another 21 days vide order dated 09.06.2020 passed in I.A. No.487 of 2020 till 30.06.2020 and till 22.07.2020 vide order dated 01.07.2020. The interim bail was further extended vide order dated 22.07.2020 passed in I.A. No. 628 of 2020 as a last chance. BLAPL No. 1664 of 2020 was ultimately withdrawn on 04.08.2020. As he had not surrendered in time, warrant had been issued against him.
4. The petitioner had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide SLP ( Crl) No. 4058 of 2020 for bail. The SLP was dismissed vide order dated 04.09.2020 with the observation that dismissal of the SLP would not come in the way of the petitioner to apply for bail afresh if so advised which would be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law.
5. The petitioner surrendered in Court on 07.09.2020 and moved the learned J.M.F.C. (Rural) Cuttack for bail who rejected his prayer on the same day. He thereafter moved the learned Sessions Judge for bail in BLAPL No.752 of 2020, which has been rejected by order dated 28.09.2020. Thereafter this application.
6. The prosecution case in brief is that on 23.11.2019 when the I.I.C., Tangi P.S. along with his staff conducted raid in the factory named and styled as 'Gajanand Industries' at Manguli, they found the present petitioner present with about 40 to 50 labourers working there. The petitioner disclosed that his father is the Proprietor and he is the Manager of the said Unit. During search they found Swostik ganesh Mustard Oil, Ruby Gold (palmolein) Golen drop mustard Oil and Agni mustard oil pouches sealed packets containing 1 litre sealed tins, empty cartons of all brands with trade mark image kept in store room and products were also under processing.The company logo Golden drop Mustard oil Swad Dilse Pure Mustrad Oil and Trishul RRB logo found on the Golden drop Oil brand and Agni Mustard Oil brand sealed pich packets, number of sealed cartons and sealed mustard oil/ palmolein tins were kept inside the store room for transportation. These oils were under the process of packing by machinery inside the unit. During verification, the petitioner stated that his unit is only collecting mustard oil, palmolein oil from different firms by tanker and the unit is only doing packing and marketing. He produced temporary Trade Mark Certificate from Kharagapur Trade Mark Bureau issued in favour of Gajanand Industries. He produced applications for registration of trade mark in respect of Golden Drop Swad Dilse logo and word, Trisul RRB logo and word, Ruby Gold logo and word ; Food safety Licence in favour of Gajananda Industries but could nor produce any legal authority towards procuring of edible oils, packing, selling and transporting. The Addl. S.P. had requested the Chief District Medical Officer (in short 'CDMO') over telephone to depute
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
