Page No.# 1/6 GAHC020002772026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : Bail Appln./5/2026 SHRI ASFAK UDDIN S/O SHRI ABDUL KALAM, R/O NAGA BAZAR, KOHIMA, NAGALAND - 797001 VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND P.P. NAGALAND Advocate for the Petitioner : SENTIYANGER, N. RUPREO,IMLIMENLA IMCHEN,KEVISERIENUO,MAONGKALA,YUKHAKOKLA,NOCKLEI M KONYAK,WAPANGLEMLA,KONLI BUCHEM Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS O R D E R 29.04.2026 Heard Mr. Sentiyanger, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Mere, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS by the petitioner on behalf of the accused Abu Sufian Page No.# 2/6 seeking regular bail in connection with GR No.34/2026 arising out of Kohima North P.S. Case No.0011 of 2026 under Section 318(4) BNS read with Section 63 of the Copyright Act 1957. The case arose out of an FIR dated 13.04.2026 lodged by one Nayanthara Demy. She lodged a complaint on behalf of M/s Hindustan Unilever Limited. It is alleged that upon undertaking a market survey, she found that five outlets named in the FIR are into counterfeit cosmetic wholesale/ retail business using the brand name Lakme. Subsequently, she purchased some products and upon examination found them to be bogus and counterfeit products. It is alleged that the businessmen concerned are indulging in stocking, distributing, marketing and selling of such spurious and counterfeit products of Hindustan Unilever brand as a result of which, innocent people are being cheated and image of the company is being tarnished. It is alleged that illicit counterfeit cosmetic business at the said address is violating the provisions of Section 63 of the Copyright Act 1957 and also Section 318(4) BNS. Pursuant to lodging of the FIR, the shop of the accused was searched and some incriminating objects seized. The accused was arrested on 13.04.2026 itself in the late evening. The case diary as called for, has been received. Mr. Sentiyanger, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the elements of cheating will not come as the FIR has not been lodged by any customer who has purchased the cosmetic products. It is also submitted that the grounds of arrest, which were furnished to the accused at the time of his arrest would not satisfy the Page No.# 3/6 requisite standards laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court. It is also submitted that the offence being punishable up to 7 years, the accused ought to have been given notice under Section 35 of the BNSS and that arresting the accused without doing so is violative of the provisions and the law laid down in this regard. On the other hand, Ms. S. Mere, the learned Public Prosecutor submits on the basis of the case diary that the accused persons along with others were involved in dealing with counterfeit cosmetic products misusing the name Lakme of Hindustan Unilever Limited. It is submitted that there is no infirmity in the grounds of arrest and that it has been explained to him in Hindi language which is understood by the accused. It is also submitted by the prosecution that considering the nature of the alleged offences the arrest of the accused was justified. I have perused the relevant materials including the case diary and considered the submissions of the learned counsels on both the sides. I have perused the grounds of arrest mentioned in the notice given to the accused at the time of his arrest on 13.04.2026. The grounds of arrest are brief, but it narrates the basic allegation and in connection with which, he has been arrested. It is also stated therein that the grounds of arrest have been explained to the accused in Hindi language, which he understands. In my considered opinion, the aforesaid notice enumerating the grounds of arrest cannot be said to be violative of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the laws laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the cases of Prabir Purkayastha Vs Page No.# 4/6 State (Nct of Delhi) 2024 INSC 414 and Vihaan Kumar Vs State of Haryana, (2025) 5 SCC 799. Upon getting the complaint, the shops of the accused person were searched and allegedly counterfeit cosmetic items were recovered and thereafter he was arrested. Though the offence is punishable up to 7 years, considering the circumstances in which the arrest was made, I am of the considered view that the same was not violative of the provisions of Section 35 of the BNSS and the principles of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in this regard. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no customer of the cosmetic product had lodged the FIR, but the informant who lodged the FIR in this case had conducted a survey on behalf of the Unilever Company and she purchased some samples for the purpose of verification and later these were found to be fake. Therefore, at this initial stage, it cannot be held explicitly that elements of cheating would not come. It is alleged in the FIR that by indulging in counterfeit products business, the accused persons have been cheating innocent customers. In the case of Jitendra Prasad Singh v. State of Assam, 2003 (2) GLT 241, it has been held in para-6 that an offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, would be non-bailable. Apart from the aforesaid aspects, I have perused the progress of investigations and the materials revealed by the investigation. The statements of the accused persons have been recorded. None of them have admitted about doing business in counterfeit products. However, one accused has stated that the fake products Page No.# 5/6 were procured from one local person whom he does not know; another accused has stated that the fake products were also found in his shop. Accused Altaf Hussain has stated that the fake items were purchased from some random ferry seller. Another accused has stated that he purchased the items from one ferry seller at very discounted prices. All the accused persons have stated about carrying out the business of selling cosmetic products for several years. The statement of the informant has been recorded and she has supported the allegations. The I.O has recorded the statement of one witness who is a salesperson in one of the shops and another witness who is the brother of the accused A2. Both of them, especially the salesperson girl has stated about the shop undertaking the business of cosmetic products, receiving products in boxes with bills and making purchases for the same. It is revealed from the case diary that samples from the seized materials have been taken and processed for sending to the R&D lab of Hindustan Unilever in Kolkata. In the entire facts and circumstances, including the progress of investigation and the length of detention, I am of the considered view that granting of bail to the accused at this stage may not prejudice the investigation in any significant manner, provided suitable conditions are also imposed. In such view of the matter, the accused/petitioner Abu Sufian is hereby allowed to go on bail of Rs 50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned learned Court (CJM, Kohima) and subject to the conditions that:- Page No.# 6/6 (i) He shall cooperate with remaining investigation, (ii) He shall not hamper or tamper with evidence, (iii) He shall not abscond and he shall not in any manner commit any illegal activities or offences, including any activities of dealing with counterfeit products. Violation of the bail conditions would make the bail liable to be cancelled. Bail petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant