KAMRAN QURESHI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the accused, Kamran Qureshi, who was charged with producing and selling 'Shahi Deluxe Soopari' using the fake label of the complainant's company. The core legal question before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and the statutory punishment prescribed for the offense. The court observed that the alleged offense carries a maximum punishment of three years, thereby placing it outside the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure law. Furthermore, the court noted that the evidentiary issues regarding the alleged infringement of copyright and the lack of sealed incriminating articles recovered from the applicant's possession were matters to be determined during the trial, and expressing an opinion at this stage would be premature. Consequently, the court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. The key principle laid down is that where an offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant bail provisions, the court should exercise discretion in favor of granting bail, provided the applicant furnishes sufficient security.
- Does an offense punishable with a maximum of three years imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Should bail be granted when the evidentiary merits of a copyright infringement claim require further trial investigation?
- Is the absence of sealed incriminating articles a relevant factor for the court to consider when deciding a bail application?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, J.---The facts of the case are that complainant received an information that this applicant along with 2 other absconder accused are involved in producing and selling Shahi Deluxe Soopari under the fake label of original company. After receiving information the Manager of Super Shahid Deluxe Soopari when investigated the matter he found it as correct and after consulting with the police party, raid was made on 10-12-2005, and this applicant along with Riaz Qureshi and Rehman Qureshi were found preparing and putting Soopari in packets under the fake label of complainant-Company.
2. ' It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that no incriminating articles were recovered from the possession of this applicant. Even otherwise articles which were found at the place of incident were not sealed and were also not sent to the Chemical Examiner or any other expert. The punishment is only 3 years. In view of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for applicant and facts of case, Mr. Anwar Ansari, Advocate for the State has no objection for the grant of bail.
3. ' The allegation against this applicant is that he , has infringed the copyright of complainant- Company and under fake title of Shahid Deluxe Soopari belonging to complainant was selling his products.
2. The ground that whether the rights of complainant's company have beer infringed and applicant along with his other companion without consent and permissior of complainant's-company had used ii illegally for their benefits needs evidence.
4. ' Therefore, any expression of opinion at this stage can prejudice the case of either party. Even otherwise the offence charged is punishable with 3 years and do not fall A within prohibitory clause. Thus, applicant is allowed to be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing a surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) and P.R bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.