GHULAM MUSTAFA Versus State Mian Saeed ud Din Ahmad
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 66 and 67 of the Copyright Ordinance, 1962, alleging trademark infringement and unlawful manufacturing of ink. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the allegations of trademark violation and the pendency of civil suits between the parties. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the petitioner was specifically nominated in the FIR with a distinct role, prima facie sufficient material connected him to the offense, and the prerequisites for pre-arrest bail were absent. The court laid down the principle that where an accused is specifically nominated with active involvement in trademark infringement and recovery is pending, pre-arrest bail is unwarranted.
- Is an accused specifically nominated in an FIR for trademark infringement entitled to pre-arrest bail?
- Does the pendency of civil proceedings under the Trade Mark Ordinance bar criminal prosecution for copyright violations?
- Are the offenses under sections 66 and 67 of the Copyright Ordinance, 1962, falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Section 66, Copyright Ordinance 1962
- Section 67, Copyright Ordinance 1962
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J .---Ghulam Mustafa, the petitioner, is seeking pre-arrest bail, in case F.I.R. No.385, dated 29-9-2007, offence under sections, 66 and 67 of the Copy Right Ordinance, 1962, registered at Police Station, New Anarkali, Lahore.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely roped in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention. In fact, the matter, in issue, is purely of a civil nature and civil suits under Trade Mark Ordinance, 2001 are pending adjudication between the parties before the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore. Further states that, it is yet to be determined by the trial Court, whether any infringement of Trade Mark is being made or not. No incriminating material is available with the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. The offences alleged to have been committee; by the petitioner do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, the petitioner deserves extraordinary relief of bail before arrest.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State has vehemently opposed this bail petition.
4. Having given the anxious considerations to the respective arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it transpires that, the petitioner is specifically nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role of manufacturing the ink with the name and style "Best Dollar Ink", having no permission to use this trade mark, which is similar with the T.M., being used by the complainant. Recovery is yet to be effected from his possession. Prima facie, sufficient material is available on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. The petitioner has failed to show any mala fide on the part of the complainant or the police for his false implication in this case. To my mind, there is so similarity that anyone can easily be deceived while purchasing the said item, because there is no major change in the size of the packet, colour, pieces therein. Normally the people do not care about the name of company. Even otherwise, prerequisites for grant of bail before arrest are missing in this case.
5. In this view of the matter, this bail petition is dismissed and ad interim pre-arrest bail, already granted to the petitioner by this Court on 12-11-2007, is hereby recalled.
H.B.T./G-92/L Bail refused.