JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. Applicant–Sachidanand Mani Tripathi, apprehending his arrest, in case FIR No.17 of 2025, dated 15.07.2025, registered, under Sections 318(4), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ BNS ’), and Section 63 of the Copyright Act, with Police Station, Sansarpur Tarrace, District Kangra, H.P., has filed the present application, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘S’). 2. By way of the present application, indulgence of this Court has been sought to direct the Police/ Investigating Officer of Police Station Sansarpur Tarrace, District Kangra, H.P., to release him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above noted case. 3. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and being victimized due to certain vested interests. The FIR has been registered on mala fide considerations and with an oblique motive to harass and browbeat the applicant. 4. As per the applicant, he has no concern whatsoever with the crime in question. It is his further case that he is partner of Qurx Pharmaceuticals operating in the State of Himachal Pradesh and also having a drug manufacturing licence, which was valid from 18.09.2020 to 17.09.2025, issued by Drug Licensing Authority, Dharamshala. 5. The applicant has also tried his luck by moving similar the application before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehra, District Kangra, however, the said application was dismissed on 17.09.2025. 6. It is the further case of the applicant that when his bail application was pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehra, interim protection was given to him. Consequently, he has joined the investigation, in the present case. 7. All these facts have been pleaded to demonstrate that his custodial interrogation is not required by the Police, in the present case. 8. Apart from this, Mr. Umesh Kanwar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued to the I.O./Police, under Section 482 BNSS . 9. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application. 10. Umesh Kanwar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued to the I.O./Police, under Section 482 BNSS . 9. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application. 10. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that one complaint was moved by Shri Mohit Chadha, Brahmanand Ayurveda Private Limited, Village Jagral, District Jalandhar Punjab, mentioning therein, that his private limited Company is registered in the name and style of Brahmanand Ayurveda (OPC) Private Limited, Jamral Jalandhar. The company is registered company and having Trademark Certificate. The Company used to manufacture medicine, in the name and style of Kamraj capsules. 10.1. It is the further case of the complainant that similar type of fictitious capsules are being sold in the market in Punjab and in this regard action has been taken in different districts and FIRs have also been registered, against various persons. 10.2. According to the complainant, in City Police Station, Navanshehar Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar, FIR No. 209, dated 30.12.2024, under Section 63 of Copyright Act and Section 3128(4) (sic.) 318(4) of BNS , was registered, in which, the persons, who were arrested, had disclosed that duplicate Kamraj capsules are being prepared, packed and sold by Tripathi and Ranjan Bhuntra of Qurax Pharma Sansarpur Tarrace Company. This disclosure statement was made by Amandeep Singh son of Sandeep Singh and Varinder Kumar son of Om Prakash. 10.3. It is the further case of the complainant that he came to know from the reliable sources that Tripathi and Ranjan Bhuntra, are partners of Qurax Pharma Sansarpur Tarrace Company and the said company used to produce, pack and sell, duplicate capsules of Kamraj capsules, Kamraj Tila and Kamraj Gold Capsules, as such, they are playing with the health of the general public and also causing financial loss to the company of the complainant. Reputation of the company is also stated to have suffered adversely, as such, he has prayed that action be taken against said Tripathi and Ranjan Bhuntra. 10.4. Reputation of the company is also stated to have suffered adversely, as such, he has prayed that action be taken against said Tripathi and Ranjan Bhuntra. 10.4. On 15.07.2025, complainant and other persons again appeared before the Police and disclsoed that the duplicate products were being prepared by Qurax Pharma Sansarpur Tarrace Company, as such, according to them, in case, a raid is conducted over the premises of Qurax Pharma Sansarpur Tarrace Company, then large quantity of duplicate capsules of Kamraj could be recovered. Drug Inspector Kushal Kumar, Industrial Area Sansarpur Tarrace, Rajeshwar Singh, Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Ghati and Fateh Singh, Ward Member Ward No.2, were requested to come to the Police Stage and they were apprised about the factual position. 10.5. Thereafter, the police, along with the said persons, proceeded towards the premises of Qurax Pharma Sansarpur Tarrace Company. When, they reached at the gate of the Company, Sachidanand Mani Tripathi (applicant), was apprised, telephonically, about the fact that a complaint against Qurax Pharma Sansarpur Tarrace Company has been received, as such, the premises is required to be searched, upon which, said Sachidanand Mani Tripathi (applicant), informed SI Incharge telephonically, that due to his ailment, he is at Delhi and also requested the I.O. to conduct search, in the presence of Satish Kumar son of Shri Ram Saha, who is employee of Qurax Pharma Sansarpur Tarrace Company. 10.6. Thereafter, the premises of the Company was searched, in the presence of Satish Kumar and worker Mukesh Kumar. During search of the premises of Qurax Pharma Sansarpur Tarrace Company, the following articles were found:- i) Blister/Printing Foil 2 roll, having marka of Kaamraj; ii) Aluminum foil, having marka of BR/KR iii) Roll (3) cutter Dye iv) frame/dye 2 v) sealing plate 02 vi Guide plate 05 of different size vii) loose capsules kept in a polythene viii) capsules kept in wraper (6), on the roof of the company upon which, Kaamraj/BRKR was printed. ix) empty (hard Gelatin) capsules (ready to fill), which was kept in a big polythene envelope, in large quantity were found. 10.7. When, Satish Kumar, who was present there, was directed to produce valid licence or permit to keep the same, he could not produce the same before the Police. ix) empty (hard Gelatin) capsules (ready to fill), which was kept in a big polythene envelope, in large quantity were found. 10.7. When, Satish Kumar, who was present there, was directed to produce valid licence or permit to keep the same, he could not produce the same before the Police. Complainant Mohit Chadha, identified the recovered articles as duplicate material for preparing medicines, upon which, the FIR, as referred above, was registered and the criminal machinery swung into motion. 10.8. During investigation, Drugs Inspector Kushal Kumar has disclosed to the police that the recovered articles and capsules do not fall within the definition of Allopathic, and the same falls within the ambit of Ayush Department. As such, according to him, only the Drugs Inspector, Ayush Department could take action, in the matter. Thereafter, Drugs Inspector Kushal Kumar has given a certificate to the police, which was taken into possession. 10.9. Thereafter, Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, Ayurvedic Medical College Paprola, presently, Ayush Drugs Inspector, Kangra, was requested to come to the spot, where, the recovered articles were weighed. On weighment, Blister/ Printing Foil 2 rolls were found to be 11 Kgs, aluminum foil three rolls found to be 36.725 Kgs., loose capsules 214 capsules empty hard Gelatin Capsules (Ready to Fill), were 6.205 kgs. The above articles were, thereafter, handed over to Ayurvedic Medical College Paprola. 10.10. Thereafter, the complainant produced a self attested statement regarding Brahmanand Ayurveda (OPC) Private Limited, Village Jagral District Jalandhar Punjab, trademark certificate, along with copy of NOC level, certificate of registration of trademark, along with annexure of trademark, which were also taken into possession. 10.11. DVR of CCTV Cameras were also taken into possession from the spot on 24.07.2025. Director/ Licensing Authority of Ayurveda Department, Shimla has replied to the police, in pursuance of the correspondence on 16.07.2025, mentioning the following facts:- i) M/s Qurax Pharmaceuticals Company has not been registered with the Ayush Vibhag. ii) In view of above Qurax Pharmaceuticals Company is not applicable to manufacture Brahmanand Ayurvedic Trademark Kamraj’s medicine. iii) In view of above any other information related to the company is not applicable. 10.12. During investigation, on 17.07.2025, 25.7.2025, 1.08.2025 and 02.08.2025, Assistant Drugs Controller, Dharamshala, Drugs Inspector and Drugs Controller, Baddi were requested to provide partnership deed, affidavit of partnership, and drugs manufacturing license of the Qurax Pharmaceuticals Company, upon which, the following documents were supplied:- 01. License no. 10.12. During investigation, on 17.07.2025, 25.7.2025, 1.08.2025 and 02.08.2025, Assistant Drugs Controller, Dharamshala, Drugs Inspector and Drugs Controller, Baddi were requested to provide partnership deed, affidavit of partnership, and drugs manufacturing license of the Qurax Pharmaceuticals Company, upon which, the following documents were supplied:- 01. License no. NNZ/15-88 & BNZ/15-89 of M/S Qurx Pharmaceuticals issued by Health and Family welfare Department HP under Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 2017, which was valid from 18.09.2020 to 17.09.2025. 02. Affidavit of Partnership executed by Sachidanand Mani Tripathi, of M/s Qurx Pharmaceuticals company permanent address has been mentioned as VPO Belhara Road Tehsil Siar Distt. Balli and Mrs. Simi and Mr Anand Mani Tripathi were found to be the partners. 03. In the Partnership Deed names of Shri Anand Mani Tripathi s/o Sh. Ramshray Mani Tripathi, (ii) Smt. Simi and Sh. Sachida Nand Mani Tripathi were found mentioned. However, according to the record, named partners have decided to start the partnership business of Battery charging & allied works in the name and style of QURX Pharmaceuticals Plot No. 191, 191-A Phase 3, Industrial Area at Sansarpur Terrace Tehsil Jaswan Distt. Kangra (HP) with effect from 20th January 2016. 10.13. Thereafter, the partners of M/s Qurax Pharmaceuticals Company, were directed to join the investigation. Consequently Smt. Simmi has joined the investigation, whereas, Sachidanand Mani Tripath (applicant) and Anand Mani Tripathi, have not joined the investigation. 10.14. During investigation, the record pertaining to Qurax Pharmaceuticals Company, was requisitioned from Drugs Inspector Headquarter Dharamshala. As per the partnership deed, Sachidanand Mani Tripathi (applicant) son of Shri Ramashray Mani Tripathi, is resident of 16- 621-B-42, Sheshappa Thota Madnapalle, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh. As per the affidavit of partnership, address of Sachidanand Mani Tripathi has been mentioned as VPO Belhara Road Tehsil Siar District Balli, whereas, in the bail application filed under Section 482 BNSS , he has given his address as resident of B-235, Nagar Mohalla, near Baba Balak Nath Mandir District Hoshiarpur, Punjab. 10.15. It has also been admitted that in pursuance of the directions of Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehra, on 10.08.2025, Sachidanand mani Tripathi (applicant) appeared before the Police, along with his counsel. As per the record, Sachidanand Mani Tripathi (applicant), Anand Mani Tripathi and Simmi are partners of Qurax Pharmaceuticals Company in equal shares. 10.16. 10.15. It has also been admitted that in pursuance of the directions of Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehra, on 10.08.2025, Sachidanand mani Tripathi (applicant) appeared before the Police, along with his counsel. As per the record, Sachidanand Mani Tripathi (applicant), Anand Mani Tripathi and Simmi are partners of Qurax Pharmaceuticals Company in equal shares. 10.16. During investigation, partners Anand Mani Tripathi and Smt. Simmi have disclosed that from the last so many years, they have not visited the Company and Sachidanand Mani Tripathi (applicant), is visiting regularly. He is looking after the affairs of the Company and used to purchase the material. According to them, it is Sachidanand Mani Tripathi (applicant), who could disclose about the material, which were found, at the time of raid on 15.07.2025. 10.17. It is the further case of the police that on 16.07.2025, 17.07.2025 and 18.07.2025, Sachidanand Tripathi has joined the investigation and disclosed that in the year 2013, he has started Qurax Pharmaceuticals Company, for production of Alopethic medicines, at Plot No.191-191-A, Phase-III, Sansarpur Tarrace. They are three partners, in equal shares. His younger brother Anand Mani Tripathi and Simmi wife of Ranjan Bhontra are the partners. He is the person, who is residing in the premises of the Company and he also used to deal with the purchase of raw material. Partner Simmi has not visited the premises after 2019. 10.18. The account of the Company is with Bank of Baroda, Branch Hoshiarpur and he used to operate the same in the name of the Company. He obtained the loan of Rs.95,00,000/-. He also disclosed that his Company used to produce Allopathic medicines, for which, he is having the licence. On 15.07.2025, in connection with his treatment, he had gone to Delhi, then he came to know about the fact that when a raid has been conducted, in the premises, duplicate capsules of Kamraj, foil papers were recovered and according to him, the company was not having the licence to produce Ayurvedic medicines. The articles, which were recovered, were kept by a person, who has visited the company, about 7-8 months ago. The said person, on phone, has disclosed to the applicant that he is resident of Jind Haryana and disclosed his name as Harman and his mobile No.+44 7757232789. 10.19. Lastly, it has been apprehended that applicant is very clever person and concealing the truth, by misleading the police. The said person, on phone, has disclosed to the applicant that he is resident of Jind Haryana and disclosed his name as Harman and his mobile No.+44 7757232789. 10.19. Lastly, it has been apprehended that applicant is very clever person and concealing the truth, by misleading the police. 11. On the basis of the above facts, interim protection was given to the applicant on 08.10.2025 and the matter was adjourned for 15.10.2025. 12. On 15.10.2025, the police filed the fresh status report, disclosing therein that although, the applicant has joined the investigation, however, he is not disclosing the fact that from where, he has procured the material, which was recovered during search. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for 6.11.2025. 13. On 06.11.2025, the police has filed the fresh status report, on the similar grounds, and the matter was adjourned for 13.11.2025. 14. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 15. The applicant has joined the investigation and he has also been associated in the investigation. However, according to the police, he is not disclosing the fact that from where he has procured the material, which was recovered during raid. 16. Merely, the protection, not to take any coercive action, does not preclude the police to get the recovery effected from the applicant as, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Others versus State of Punjab, (1980) 2 Supreme Court Cases 565, a person, having the protection under Section 438 Cr.PC (482 of the BNS ), is deemed to have surrendered himself, if a discovery is to be made. Relevant paragraph 43 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:- 43. During the last couple of years this Court, while dealing with appeals against orders passed by various High Courts, has granted anticipatory bail to many a person by imposing conditions set out in Section 438(2)(i), (ii) and (iii). The Court has, in addition, directed in most of those cases that (a) the applicant should surrender himself to the police for a brief period if a discovery is to be made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act or that he should be deemed to have surrendered himself if such a discovery is to be made. The Court has, in addition, directed in most of those cases that (a) the applicant should surrender himself to the police for a brief period if a discovery is to be made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act or that he should be deemed to have surrendered himself if such a discovery is to be made. In certain exceptional cases, the Court has, in view of the material placed before it, directed that the order of anticipatory bail will remain in operation only for a week or so until after the filing of the F.I.R. in respect of matters covered by the order. These orders, on the whole, have worked satisfactorily, causing the least inconvenience to the individuals concerned and least interference with the investigational rights of the police. The Court has attempted through those orders to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the investigational rights of the police. The appellants who were refused anticipatory bail by various courts have long since been released by this Court under Section 438(1) of the Code. 17. Similar view has again reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 Supreme Court Cases 1. Relevant paragraph 92.8 is reproduced as under:- “92.8. The observations in Sibbia regarding “limited custody” or “deemed custody” to facilitate the requirements of the investigative authority, would be sufficient for the purpose of fulfilling the provisions of Section 27, in the event of recovery of an article, or discovery of a fact, which is relatable to a statement made during such event (i.e. deemed custody). In such event, there is no question (or necessity) of asking the accused to separately surrender and seek regular bail. Sibbia (supra) had observed that “19...if and when the occasion arises, it may be possible for the prosecution to claim the benefit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in regard to a discovery of facts made in pursuance of information supplied by a person released on bail by invoking the principle stated by this Court in State of H.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya.” 18. In the status report, the prayer, as made in the bail application, has been opposed mainly on the ground that applicant is concealing the truth and not disclosing as to from where, he has procured the material, which was recovered during search. The alleged refusal/non- cooperation of the applicant, to the considered opinion of this Court, could not be the ground for dismissal of the application, as no one can be compelled to be the witness against himself, as the same is violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. 19. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are seen in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah versus Kamal Dayani & Others, (2025) 1 Supreme Court Cases 753, the applicant is entitled to the relief, as claimed, in the application. Relevant paragraph 43 of judgment, is reproduced, as under:- “43. We are of the firm opinion that non- cooperation by the accused is one matter and the accused refusing to confess to the crime is another. There would be no obligation upon the accused that on being interrogated, he must confess to the crime and only thereafter, would the Investigating Officer be satisfied that the accused has cooperated with the investigation. As a matter of fact, any confession made by the accused before a police officer is inadmissible in evidence and cannot even form a part of the record.” 20. The role attributed to the applicant would be proved during the trial and rejection of the bail would be nothing, but, pre-trial punishment, which is prohibited under the law. 21. Even otherwise, the bail application cannot be rejected, as a matter of punishment, as, pre-trial punishment is prohibited under the law and punishment can only be imposed, after the full fledged trial, by competent Court of law. Moreover, a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, after the trial 22. Considering the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the view that the interim protection, granted to the applicant, is required to be made absolute, as, no useful purpose would be served by dismissing the present applications, which would result into the judicial custody of the applicant. 23. Considering all these facts, the interim order dated 08.10.2025, passed by this Court, is hereby made absolute. 23. Considering all these facts, the interim order dated 08.10.2025, passed by this Court, is hereby made absolute. Therefore, it is ordered that the applicant be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No.17 of 2025, dated 15.07.2025, registered, under Sections 318 (4) and 61(2) of the BNS , and Section 63 of the Copyright Act with Police Station, Sansarpur Tarrace, District Kangra, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond, in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions : a) That the applicant shall join the investigation of the case, as and when, called for, by the Investigating Officer, in accordance with law; b) That the applicant shall not leave India, without prior permission of the Court; c) That 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or the Court; and d) That the applicant shall regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application. 26. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present application. 27. It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions, is found violated by the applicant.