The court ruled that an accused charged without prior arrest may appear and secure release by furnishing a bail bond, with no requirement for anticipatory bail, aligning with precedents that protect personal liberty.

JUDGMENT :

Vinod Diwakar, J.

1. Heard Shri Satyaveer Singh, learned Amicus Curiae, along with learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, and perused the material available on record.

2. The applicant has challenged the summoning order dated 29.04.2022 passed in Case No. 10849 of 2022, which is pending trial before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur. The applicant has also prayed to quash the impugned charge-sheet no. 1/2021, filed in connection with Case Crime No.0395 of 2021, registered under Section 420 IPC, read with Sections 63 and 65 of the COPYRIGHT ACT , 1957.

3. In brief, the prosecution's case is that the applicant is the proprietor of a retail paint shop operating under the name Krishna Hardware Paints Centre, located at Shanti Nagar, Bichhiya, District Gorakhpur and on spot inspection by the officers of the authorised company, the applicant was found selling counterfeit Asian Paints products, and huge quantity of counterfeit paints have been recovered from the applicant's shop. Whereas the applicant's case is that she had procured paint products from a wholesale distributor, namely Force Trading, situated at Dharamshala Bazar, Gorakhpur, through valid tax invoices/receipts issued at the time of purchase. The paints were sold from the applicant's retail outlet in the ordinary course of business.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had no knowledge or reason to believe that the paint products or packaging received from the wholesaler were counterfeit or adulterated. The alleged presence of counterfeit paint boxes only came to light during a raid conducted by the authorised representative of the complainant's company at the applicant's shop.

4.1 Even assuming the allegations to be true on their face, the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC read with Sections 63 and 65 of the COPYRIGHT ACT , 1957, are not satisfied. There is no dishonest intention or mens rea attributable to the applicant, nor any act of infringement knowingly committed by her. Thus, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the applicant is a gross abuse of the process of law, as the statutory prerequisites for invoking the said penal provisions are clearly absent in the present case.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that during a spot inspection conducted at the applicant's premises by the authorised representative of SGS IPR Consultancy- the complainant- a substantial quantity of counterfeit Asian Paints products was recovered, indicating that the applicant was deriving significant illegal profit. As regards the applicant's knowledge and intention to earn such profit, these matters are to be examined during trial and can only be determined after the prosecution witness has deposed. At this stage, the veracity and probative value of the prosecution's evidence cannot be assessed and placed reliance on the principle laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp. (1) 335 .

6. In the given facts and circumstances, the applicant was afforded an opportunity to address the merits of the case. However, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that unless the trial cou