Bombay High Court: Offences Punishable with Imprisonment of 3 or more years under Laws other than IPC are cognizable & non-bailable

Bombay High Court: Offences Punishable with Imprisonment of 3 or more years under Laws other than IPC are cognizable & non-bailable

The Bombay High Court (HC) in the case titled Piyush Subhashbhai Ranipa (Applicant) v. The State of Maharashtra (Respondent) dealt with the maintainability of the anticipatory bail application of the accused person charged for infringement of Intellectual Property Laws (IP Laws) under offences punishable for 3 years.

Justice Sarang V. Kotwal held that offenses punishable with 'up to three years' under laws other than the Indian Penal Code (IPC) will be categorized as cognizable and non-bailable.

An anticipatory bail application was filed by the accused/ applicant before the HC, who apprehended arrest in a case pertaining mainly to copyright infringement and faking of trademark of the complainant company – Jain Irrigation System.

In the instant case, the applicant was accused of manufacturing irrigation pipes, transporting and selling them under the trademark of the complainant company without due authority.

Advocate Mandar Soman, representing the applicant stated before the HC that a Magistrate had already granted bail to the co-accused on the ground that Section 418 IPC under which they are charged is bailable.

The advocate further argued that the main offences under Sections 63 of the Copyright Act and Section 103 of the Trademarks Act were also bailable.

It was observed by the HC that the Magistrate had not considered the application of the Copyright Act and Trademarks Act provisions in detail. The Court added that the Magistrate failed to consider whether the Sections of the Act were bailable or not while granting bail to the applicant's co-accused.

Aniket Nikam and Prosecutor Ajay Patil were appointed as amicus-curiae by the HC to assist it on this point. They relied on several judgments to show that the issue at hand was already settled in the past.

They stated that it was "No more res-integra and different Courts including a Division Bench of the HC have held that the offences in which punishment can extend up to 3 years are non-bailable offences."

The Amicus and the Prosecutor relied up on the Division Bench judgment of the HC in the case titled Shivram Puthran v. The Commissioner of Police (2011 SCC online Bom 389) wherein the Court considered whether offences under Sections 43 and 52 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act were cognizable or non-cognizable.

The HC concluded, "There appears to be an infringement of the trademark registered in the name of the informant's company. The commission of offence punishable under Section 103 of the Trade Marks Act is clearly made out. The accused have falsely applied the informant's trademark to their products and have attempted to sell those products. The act of the accused also amounts to offence under Section 420 r/w. 511 of the IPC."

While rejecting the application, the HC held, "There is also a statement of co-accused which shows active involvement of the present applicant and it was mentioned that the goods were given by the applicant and they were manufactured at his unit. In this view of the matter, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. No relief of anticipatory bail can be granted."