Bengaluru, September 5, 2023 – The LV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCC-56), has granted anticipatory bail to Deepak Kumar, a 30-year-old resident of Mandrela, Rajasthan, who was implicated in a case concerning copyright and trademark infringement involving counterfeit buttons of major international fashion brands.
The order, issued by Sri. Shriram Narayan Hegde, allows the petitioner to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 375/2023, registered at the Kamakshipalya Police Station, Bengaluru. The charges against him are filed under Sections 51(1)(b) (Infringement of copyright) and 63 (Offence of infringement of copyright or other rights conferred by the Act) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The bail petition was Crl.Misc. No. 8302/2023.
Details of the Counterfeit Operation
The case was initiated based on a complaint filed by Sri. Umar Abdullah, an authorized representative for several globally renowned companies, including Lacoste SA, France, and Burberry Limited, UK. The complainant is tasked with investigating, filing, and prosecuting cases across India related to Copyright and Trademark violations on behalf of these and other major brands like Gant, Hugo Boss, Polo Ralph Lauren, and Levi’s.
According to the prosecution’s brief, the complainant visited a shed operating under the name ‘Sham Buttons’ located at No. 15/2, Hegganahalli Main Road, near RES Polytechnic College, Sunkadakatte, Bengaluru. It was alleged that the accused, Deepak Kumar, was actively involved in selling duplicate buttons bearing the logos and branding of LACOSTE, GANT, and BURBERRY. The complainant subsequently filed the formal police report, leading to the registration of the criminal case, which is currently under investigation.
Petitioner’s Claim of Innocence and Extortion
Deepak Kumar, represented by Sri. B.K. Ramesh, Advocate, vehemently asserted his innocence, contending that he had not committed any of the alleged offenses. He argued that he was supplying materials legally and that the case was a malicious fabrication.
The defense claimed that the complainant had initially demanded a ransom, and when Deepak Kumar refused to comply, the false case was lodged against him. He maintained that there were no reasonable grounds to believe he had committed the offences. Furthermore, the defense emphasized that the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, a key factor in considering bail applications. As a permanent resident with no criminal antecedents, the petitioner assured the court of his readiness to cooperate fully with both the investigation and the subsequent trial.
Prosecution’s Opposition and Court’s Ruling
The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the anticipatory bail application, arguing that there was a strong prima facie case against the petitioner. The prosecution expressed concern that if released, Deepak Kumar might tamper with prosecution witnesses or abscond, thereby impeding the due course of justice.
The Court thoroughly reviewed the records and the arguments presented by both sides. The decisive factor in the judicial analysis was the nature of the offenses. The Court noted that the charges under the Copyright Act, 1957, specifically Sections 51(1)(b) and 63, are not punishable with life imprisonment or death. This fact significantly influences the judicial approach, as the stringent conditions applicable to more heinous crimes are not mandatory here.
Acknowledging the petitioner’s commitment to cooperation and the lack of recorded criminal antecedents, the Judge determined that the apprehension of the prosecution could be adequately addressed by imposing strict and reasonable conditions. The Court concluded that Deepak Kumar had successfully made out sufficient grounds for pre-arrest bail, thereby answering the point for determination in the affirmative.
Bail Conditions Imposed
The petition filed by Deepak Kumar under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. was allowed. In the event of his arrest in Cr.No.375/2023, the petitioner is to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety for the like sum.
The following conditions were mandated to ensure the petitioner’s compliance with the legal process:
- The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer (I.O.) within 10 days from the date of the order.
- He shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses in any manner.
- He shall cooperate with the I.O. as and when called for investigation.
- He shall not involve himself in any criminal activities.
- He shall attend the court regularly on all dates of hearing, without fail.
This ruling secures the petitioner’s liberty while ensuring the investigation by the Kamakshipalya Police can proceed without obstruction, emphasizing the legal preference for liberty when the charges do not involve the most severe penalties.