IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10489 of 2011 SAHADEO PRASAD SON OF LATE BARHO PRASAD. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 21.04.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 51, 65, 63 and 68A of the Copy Right Act and Section 78 and 79 of the Trade Mark Act. The accusation against the petitioner is that though, the petitioner has a firm namely M/s Binu Electronics but he was selling the stabilizer in the brand name of the informant namely Sen and Pandit, consequently, recovery of Sen and Pandit stabilizers were made. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no recovery of Sen and Pandit stabilizer has been made from the petitioner’s firm nor the petitioner used to sell Sen and Pandit stabilizers. Let the petitioner deposit Rs. 25,000/- before the learned court below, which will be invested in some 2 fix deposit scheme, which will be subject to the result of the case. Considering the aforesaid facts, let the above named petitioner, be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of 12 weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in connection with Civil Lines P.S. Case No. 281/2010, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Amrendra/- (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)