Jamil Akhtar Ansari vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.

In view of the personal undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioner the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter are ignored for the present.

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Sakchi P.S. case no. 54 of 2020 registered under Sections 63/65 of the Copyright Act, 1957 read with Section 103, 104, of Trade Marks Act, 1999 along with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was selling 30 pcs. of duplicate watches claiming those watches to be of Fast-track company. It is then submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is false and the petitioner is not the manufacturer of the said duplicate watches. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 01.10.2020 as mentioned in paragraph 21 of the bail application and the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the trial of the case and co-accused with similar allegations has already been released on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 28.09.2020 passed in BA no. 2610 of 2020 hence, the petitioner may be released on bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Considering the facts of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Jamshedpur in connection with Sakchi P.S. case no. 54 of 2020 subject to the condition that the petitioner will co- operate with the trial of the case.