Order on Board

1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.08/2026 registered at Police Station – Chhuriya District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 63 of Copyright Act, 1957 and 318 (4) of BNS, 2023.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 08.01.2025, the complainant, namely Mangal Pandey, who is stated to be duly authorized by Mahindra Oils, Tata Motors and Gulf Oil Lubricants India Limited as an Investigating Manager, along with the police authorities, conducted an inspection at the shop of the present applicant situated near Jumman Dhaba, Patekhohra Barrier, Rajnandgaon, where it was allegedly found that DEF (urea) of the aforesaid companies was being filled into 20-litre containers after affixing duplicate holograms and stickers and was being sold to customers as genuine products; it is further alleged that from the possession of the co-accused, 33 containers of 20 litres each of Mahindra Axix Oil Plus, 54 containers of 20 litres each of Gulf Company, 10 containers of 20 litres each of Bharat Benz Company, and 50 containers of 30 litres each of Tata Motors Diesel X, along with 3 counterfeit sheets of Tata holograms, were seized, totaling 2,940 litres of urea valued at ₹1,92,085/-.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no offence, much less any offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, is made out against the present applicant, as there is no material on record to suggest any act of infringement of copyright attributable to him. It is contended that the applicant is running a shop in the name and style of M/s Atik & Sons which is engaged purely in trading activities and not in any manufacturing or packaging work. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant, not being the manufacturer of the alleged urea, had no knowledge of any purported illegality and, in the absence of any role in manufacturing or affixing labels or holograms, the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are not attracted. Learned counsel for the applicant further stated that applicant was having 07 criminal antecedent out of which he has been acquitted in three cases and others have already been disposed of. It is also contended that the case has been registered in the absence of the applicant, who was out of station at the relevant time, and that the allegations are primarily directed against the co-accused. It is further submitted that the offences alleged are triable by a Magistrate and do not fall within the category of heinous offences. There is no allegation of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the applicant undertakes to fully cooperate with the investigation and trial. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident having deep roots in society, there is no likelihood of his absconding, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that a large quantity of counterfeit DEF (urea), along with duplicate holograms and stickers, has been seized from the shop of the applicant, and being the proprietor thereof, his involvement cannot be ruled out. It is further submitted that custodial interrogation is necessary and, considering the criminal antecedents of the applicant, he is not entitled for grant of bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and upon perusal of the case diary, it transpires that the applicant is ru