1 2025:CGHC:47512 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7438 of 2025 Vijaychandra Dhak S/o Shri Kheduram Devangan Aged About 62 Years R/o Gram Mohandipat, Police Station Arjunda, District Balod C.G ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Balod, District Balod, Through Police Station Arjunda, District Balod C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.09.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 106/2025 registered at Police Station – Arjunda District - Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5) of the BNS and Section 63 and 65 of the of Copyright Act 1957. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the basis of a written report lodged by complainant Vishal Mandal, resident of Kolkata and VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.09.16 19:11:26 +0530 2 presently associated with Speed Search & Security Network, Crime No. 106/2025 was registered at Police Station Arjunda, District Balod (C.G.) against the applicant/accused Vijay Chandra Dhak. It was alleged that the accused was engaged in adulteration of cement with an intent to cheat the public. Accordingly, offences under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Banhita, 2023, Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Section 103 of the Trade Marks Act, 1990 were registered. The accused was arreated by Arjunda Police on 05.07.2025 and produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who remanded him to judicial custody. As per the case diary, it is alleged that the accused was mixing inferior material in UltraTech cement bags and selling them as genuine product, though no final laboratory or testing report confirming adulteration has yet been placed on record. The prosecution also pointed out that the accused has a criminal background, as Crime No. 70/2022 was earlier registered against him under Sections 376, 323/34 and 506(B) IPC, which indicates a habitual criminal tendency. On these grounds, the Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail, stating that the offences are serious and non-bailable in nature, and releasing the accused would embolden him to commit similar offences again. 3. The present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He has been in judicial custody since 05.07.2025, and further detention without conclusive evidence amounts to pre-trial punishment, causing severe financial distress to his dependent family. The applicant is a 62-year-old senior citizen whose prolonged incarceration may adversely affect his health. The case pertains to 3 alleged violations of trade and copyright laws, which are documentary and technical in nature, and no custodial interrogation is required. The applicant is engaged in the manufacture of fly ash bricks, wherein cement is mixed with ash, and the alleged samples were collected from his unit. It is a settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and his continued detention would violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Being a permanent resident with immovable property, there is no risk of absconding, and he is ready to furnish adequate surety and comply with all conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence levelled against the present applicant, as well as the fact that the charge sheet has been filed before the competent Court, that he has been in jail since 05.07.2025, and that the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. 7. Let the Applicant – Vijaychandra Dhak, involved in Crime No. 106/2025 registered at Police Station – Arjunda District - Balod (C.G.) 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5) of the BNS and Section 63 and 65 of the of Copyright Act 1957, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) 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. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - S Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav