IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2975 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.268/10 OF KURUPPAMPADY POLICE STATION (S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- ANOOP E.S., AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.SUGATHAN, EDAPPATTU HOUSE, PANICHAYAM KARA, ASAMANNOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, (CRIME NO.268/2010 OF KURUPPAMPADY POLICE STATION). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.2975 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 25th May, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 405, 420 and 482 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner was a super stockist of “Assam Apple Valley Tea”, as per an agreement and after the expiry of the agreement, petitioner started selling tea under the style, “Munnar Valley Apple Tea” and according to defacto complainant, petitioner was using the brand name and trade mark, resembling “Assam Apple Valley Tea” and thereby caused loss to the defacto complainant etc. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has not committed any offence. He is doing business in tea dust and he was using the name 'Munnar Valley Apple Tea' for his business. There is no bar in using such a name. He has not used the trade name “Assam Apple Valle Tea” for his product. There is a civil dispute pending between the parties and petitioner is restrained from using only the name “Assam Apple Valley Tea”, but because of the criminal BA NO.2975/10 2 complaint, petitioner has stopped the business temporarily and he is innocent of the allegations made. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner has allegedly made loss to the defacto complainant by using a misleading name for the product and hence the complaint is filed. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioner and hence, the following order is passed : Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today and he shall be released on bail, on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the following conditions : (i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. until further orders. BA NO.2975/10 3 (ii) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witness or tamper with evidence. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs