Grocery Shop Owner accused of Selling Duplicate Products of Dabur and Reckitt Fails to Produce GST Bills and Invoices: Patna HC denies Pre-arrest Bail [Read Order]
Observing that the counterfeit products were found to be harmful to human health, the Court concluded that it was not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
![Grocery Shop Owner accused of Selling Duplicate Products of Dabur and Reckitt Fails to Produce GST Bills and Invoices: Patna HC denies Pre-arrest Bail [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/10/11/2095590-grocery-shop-owner-selling-duplicate-products-dabur-reckitt-fails-produce-gst-bills-invoices-patna-hc-pre-arrest-bail-taxscan.webp "Grocery Shop Owner accused of Selling Duplicate Products of Dabur and Reckitt Fails to Produce GST Bills and Invoices: Patna HC denies Pre-arrest Bail [Read Order]")
The Patna High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a grocery shop owner accused of selling counterfeit products under the brand names of Dabur India Ltd. and Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd., after finding that he failed to produce any GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) bills or purchase invoices to prove the genuineness of the goods seized from his shop. Justice Purnendu...
The Patna High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a grocery shop owner accused of selling counterfeit products under the brand names of Dabur India Ltd. and Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd., after finding that he failed to produce any GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) bills or purchase invoices to prove the genuineness of the goods seized from his shop.
Justice Purnendu Singh, while dismissing the anticipatory bail plea of Sunil Kumar Sah alias Sunil Kumar Sahu, observed that the petitioner was allegedly engaged in the sale and purchase of fake articles bearing the names of reputed manufacturers, and that such activities not only violated intellectual property rights but also posed a serious threat to public health.
According to the FIR lodged at N.H. Bangra Police Station, Samastipur (Case No. 69 of 2025), the police conducted a raid on the petitioner’s premises following a tip-off about the sale of counterfeit goods.
During the raid, several duplicate items of Dabur and Reckitt were seized. The petitioner could not produce any valid GST invoices or purchase bills for the seized goods, nor establish that the products had been procured from a registered dealer.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that the accused was a small grocery shop owner who had bought items from the local market in Tajpur and had no knowledge that the goods were counterfeit.
It was also submitted that a co-accused, Prem Sagar, facing similar charges, had been granted pre-arrest bail by the same Court on September 26, 2025, in Criminal Misc. No. 69022 of 2025.
However, the Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the plea, arguing that the sale of fake and spurious goods not only violated the Copyright Act, 1957 (Sections 63 and 65) but also resulted in loss of revenue to the State exchequer due to tax evasion. The prosecution further stated that the seizure list confirmed the absence of any tax invoices or supporting documents for the products seized.
After hearing both sides, the Court noted that the petitioner was the owner of the premises where the raid was conducted and that fake branded articles had indeed been seized from his possession. Observing that the counterfeit products were found to be harmful to human health, the Court concluded that it was not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
