Balbir Singh Sawhney vs State
2003 Latest Caselaw 1245 Del

JUDGMENT

S.K. Agarwal, J.

1. By this petition under Section 438, Cr.P.C petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 242/2003 under Sections 78/79 of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and Section 63 of the Copyright Act, P.S. Sarai Rohilla, Delhi.

2. Prosecution allegations, in brief, are that on a complaint made on behalf of M/s. Motor Industries Company Ltd., a raid was conducted on 29.7.2003 at a godown situated at B-1089 Shastri Nagar, Delhi and a number of duplicate, spurious filters of MICO company in packed condition were seized by the police from one Varinder Singh, co-accused who was stated to be present there at the spot and was arrested. On interrogation of said Varinder Singh and at his instance few more such like filters were seized from two shops and two more persons namely Raj Kumar and Deepak were arrested. They were, subsequently, released on bail. During interrogation, Varinder Singh, in his disclosure statement, stated that Balbir Singh Sawhney is the owner of the factory where the spurious filters were being manufactured and he was working at his instance and under his command. Learned APP for the State submits that since petitioner has been named as the person at whose factory the spurious filters were being manufactured/ therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to make further inquiries and to reach other persons, if any, who may be involved in similar activity.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner is a sick and infirm person, suffering from diabetes and heart ailment; he has participated in the investigation; the factory has already been searched, therefore, he is entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. In support of his submission, reliance is placed on the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Gurbux Singh Sibia v. State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 165 (paras 19 and 43). In the alternative, learned Counsel argued that suitable directions be passed directing that petitioner be taken in police custody for a fixed period and, thereafter, releasing him on bail on such terms as may be thought proper. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on the observations made by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. L.D. Kataria . Learned APP for the State, arguing to the contrary, submitted that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation and result oriented as compared to interrogation of a suspect enjoying pre-arrest bail and placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in C.B.I. v. Anil Sharma, .

4. I have considered the rival contentions. Each case depends on its own facts and no strait-jacket formula can be applied. In this case, the person who was present in the factory was arrested. He has specifically named the petitioner as the owner of the factory. The shopkeepers from whom the spurious articles were recovered were also arrested and they were granted regular bail. As the petitioner has been specifically named as the owner of the factory where the spurious filters were being allegedly manufactured, therefore, it is not possible to hold that no case for custodial interrogation is made out. [See : Muraleedharan v. State of Kerala, 11 (2001) CCR 155 (SC)=2001 (2) Crimes 239 (SC). In the facts and circumstances of the case, application for anticipatory bail is dismissed.

5. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner may be permitted to surrender on 13.11.2003 at P.S. Chandni Chowk at 10.00 a.m. and that suitable directions be issued regarding his medical examination. In view of the ailments reflected through the medical papers filed, in the event petitioner surrenders, he be got medically examined at any Government hospital and provided with medicines that may be prescribed by the doctor, during custody remand.

With the above directions, petition stands disposed of. Any observation made herein shall not affect the merits of the case during trial or while considering petitioner's application for regular bail.