Pradeep Arora vs State Of U.P.

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 4325 of 2026

Pradeep Arora

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)

:

Sushil Kumar Pandey

Counsel for Opposite Party(s)

:

G.A.

Court No. - 71

HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the accused-applicant, learned AGA for State and perused the record.

2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed by applicant to grant anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 576 of 2021, under Sections 63/65 of Copy Right Act, 1957, P.S.- Kotwali Nagar, District- Muzaffar Nagar.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for accused-applicant that on 13.09.2021, the F.I.R. is lodged against the accused-applicant under the provisions of Section 63 and 65 of Copy Right Act, 1957, with the allegation that the shop of the applicant when inspected, was recovered with 53 pairs of fake relaxo footwear. During the investigation, the accused-applicant has not been arrested. The charge sheet is submitted. The accused-applicant wants to appear before the trial court, but apprehends arrest and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant.

5. The scope of ambit of anticipatory bail is encapsulated in three insightful judgments of Hon?ble Supreme Court right from Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 and Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, wherein it is consistently held by Hon?ble Apex Court that while granting anticipatory bail, the Court should considering the application of the applicant to evaluate the threat or apprehension of arrest vis-a-vis the nature and gravity of accusation, criminal antecedent of the accused, false or exaggerated implication, need of custodial interrogation, willingness of the accused to cooperate in investigation and trial and the conduct of the accused and flight risk.

6. This Court while considering the role of accused-applicant and he has not been arrested during the investigation and further considering the gravity of accusation and apprehension of arrest in the case vis-a-vis low flight risk and assurance of the accused in cooperating with the investigation and trial, is of considered view to grant anticipatory bail.

7. The applicant- Pradeep Arora involved in the aforesaid case crime shall appear before the trial court or the Investigating Officer, as the case may be within 30 days from the date of this order and shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with following conditions :-

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS.

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

(Avnish Saxena,J.)

May 6, 2026

Shivangi