Patna High Court
Rajesh Kumar Gupta @ Munna GuptaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Munna Gupta, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.11 of 2025 alleging manufacturing of duplicate Ashok Leyland parts, offences under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The prosecution’s case was based on seizure of parts during a police‑accompanied inspection, but no expert report was produced to establish that the parts were indeed counterfeit. The petitioner argued that he is a GST‑registered shopkeeper, has no criminal antecedent, and that the allegation of unregistered status was falsified. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail. The Court, noting the absence of expert evidence, the petitioner’s registration and clean record, inclined to grant anticipatory bail subject to standard conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The order directed release on bail upon furnishing a bond and compliance with conditions such as regular court appearances and non‑tampering with witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case alleging manufacturing of duplicate automotive parts without expert evidence.
- Whether the petitioner’s GST registration and lack of criminal antecedent justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 318(4)
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Copyright Act, 1957 — s. 63, 65
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- duplicate parts
- copyright infringement
- criminal procedure
- GST registration
- no criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16021 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2025 Thana- AMAS District- Gaya
======================================================
Rajesh Kumar Gupta @ Munna Gupta Son of Bishwanath Prasad Gupta @
Bishwanath Kumar Gupta @ Shivnath Kumar Gupta Resident Of Mohalla-
Naya Bazar, Sherghati, Ps- Sherghati, Dist- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Rajnish Ranjan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 29-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Amas P.S. Case No.11 of 2025, F.I.R dated
11.01.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section
318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 63
and 65 of the Copy Right Act, 1957.
3. According to prosecution case, on 11.01.2025, the
informant, authorized by his company, visited Hemzapur
Highway Road to verify reports of sale of duplicate company
parts. He sought assistance from Amas Police Station, and a
police team accompanied him. During the inspection, shops
belonging to Zaya Ahmad, Ranjeet Singh, and Munna Gupta
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16021 of 2026(3) dt.29-04-2026
2/4
were found allegedly selling duplicate parts of Ashok Leyland
Limited. The parts were seized in the presence of the police,
following which the FIR was lodged.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the basis of
allegation of manufacturing duplicate parts of Ashok Leyland
while there is no evidence or any report of expert to show that
the parts which is said to have been seized, is duplicate parts of
the company in question. It is the case of the petitioner that the
allegation of the shop of the petitioner not being registered with
GST gets falsified by Annexure-2, which goes to show that the
petitioner is a registered shopkeeper vide GST
No.10AEFPG7724Q1ZD. Lastly, it has been submitted that the
petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
the petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the
basis of allegation of manufacturing duplicate parts of Ashok
Leyland while there is no evidence or any report of expert to
show that the parts which is said to have been seized, is
duplicate parts of the company in question and the petitioner is a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16021 of 2026(3) dt.29-04-2026
3/4
registered shopkeeper and the petitioner has no criminal
antecedent. . Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of
his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a
period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M. Sherghati, Gaya (Bihar) in
connection with Amas P.S. Case No.11 of 2025, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the family
member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide
official document/personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16021 of 2026(3) dt.29-04-2026
4/4
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
sharun/-
U T
Checking your session…