Patna High Court
Ram Prakash Choudhary @ Ram Prakash ChaudhariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioners, subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, Ram Prakash Choudhary and Ranjeet Choudhary, were arrested on 16 February 2026 in connection with a case alleging the sale of duplicate pesticides without a valid license, invoking several sections of the B.N.S. They claimed to have clean antecedents and argued that they were not the owners of the seized articles, contending that no offence under the Copyright Act, 1957 or the Trade Marks Act, 1999 was established. The State opposed bail, while the petitioners' counsel highlighted non‑compliance with Sections 103 and 105 of the B.N.S. and the lack of ownership. The Court, noting the petitioners' clean record and the statutory deficiencies, granted bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of antecedents. The order directed the lower court to enforce these conditions and not to delay acceptance of the bail bonds.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioners despite the charges under the B.N.S. for selling duplicate pesticides
- Whether the petitioners can be deemed owners of the seized articles for purposes of the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Trade Marks Act, 1999
- Whether non‑compliance with Sections 103 and 105 of the B.N.S. affects the bail application
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103, 105, 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 3(5)
- Copyright Act, 1957
- Trade Marks Act, 1999
Subjects
- bail
- duplicate pesticides
- licensing
- copyright
- trademark
- criminal antecedents
- non‑compliance
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32622 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-591 Year-2025 Thana- PURNEA SADAR District- Purnia
======================================================
1. Ram Prakash Choudhary @ Ram Prakash Chaudhari S/o Late Devanand
Chodhri @ Late Buddhu Choudhary @ Guddu Choudhary R/o Driver tola,
Rambagh, P.S.- Sadar, Distt.- Purnea
2. Ranjeet Choudhary @ Ranjit Choudhary @Ranjeet Kumar Choudhary S/o
Late Rameshwar Choudhary R/o Driver Tola, Rambagh, P.S.- Sadar, Distt.-
Purnea
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 13-05-2026 Heard Mr. Abhishek Anand, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, learned APP for the
State.
2. Petitioners seek bail, who are in custody since
16.02.2026, in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 591 of 2025,
F.I.R. dated 29.11.2025 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he is selling
the duplicate pesticides/insecticide without a valid license.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have clean antecedents and they have been falsely
implicated in the present case. He further submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32622 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
2/3
allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the
petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R.
It appears from the seizure list that there is non compliance of
Sections 103 and 105 of the B.N.S.S. As per allegation in the
F.I.R. the petitioners are selling the duplicate pesticides/insecticide
without a valid license which was found in the house of the
petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners are not the so-
called owner of the articles in question and hence no case is made
out under the Copyright Act, 1957 and Trade Marks Act, 1999. He
further submits that the police after investigation submitted
chargesheet against the petitioners and the petitioners are in
custody since 16.02.2026.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the
petitioners.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the fact that the petitioners having clean antecedents and there
is non compliance of Sections 103 and 105 of the B.N.S.S. as well
as the petitioners are not the so-called owner of the articles in
question and hence no case is made out under the Copyright Act,
1957 and Trade Marks Act, 1999, let the petitioners, above named,
be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32622 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
3/3
the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea in
connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 591 of 2025, subject to the
following conditions :-
(1) Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on
their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason,
their bail bonds shall be cancelled by the Court below.
(2) If the petitioners tamper with the evidence or the
witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for
cancellation of bail.
(3) And, further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any
stage, it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal
antecedents, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail
bond of the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in
terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for
purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ibrar//-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.