1 2026:CGHC:9080 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1822 of 2026 Ishu Yadav S/o Chandrashekhar Yadav Aged About 19 Years R/o Village- 165, Jakhedi, Jekare, Hamirpur (Uttar Pradesh) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, P.S. Chhuriya, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20/02/2026 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. 08/2026, registered at Police Station Chowky-Chichola, P.S.-Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence under Section 318(4) of BNS and Section 63 of Copyright Act, 1957. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 08.01.2026, the complainant SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.02.20 18:48:03 +0530 2 Mangal Pandey, who is stated to be an authorized Investigating Manager of Mahindra Oils, Tata Motors and Gulf Oil Lubricants India Limited, along with the police officials, conducted a raid at the shop of co-accused Jumman Khan situated near Jumman Dhaba, Patekohra Barrier, Rajnandgaon, within the jurisdiction of Chowky Chichola, Police Station Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon. During inspection, it was allegedly found that DEF (urea) products of reputed companies were being refilled in 20-litre buckets by affixing duplicate holograms and stickers and were being sold to customers as genuine products. From the spot, 33 buckets of 20 litres of Mahindra Axix Oil Plus, 54 buckets of 20 litres of Gulf Company, 10 buckets of 20 litres of Bsellharat Benz Company, 50 buckets of 30 litres of Tata Motors Diesel X, along with 3 counterfeit hologram sheets of Tata, totaling approximately 2940 litres of urea valued at Rs.1,92,085/-, were seized. On the basis of the said seizure, Crime No. 08/2026 was registered against the present applicant and co-accused for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, alleging involvement in sale and distribution of counterfeit products bearing forged labels and holograms. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is merely an employee of the firm in question and is not the owner, proprietor or manufacturer of the alleged goods, and was working under the directions of the co-accused who runs the establishment. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is the employee of the company in question. It is argued that 3 minimum punishment provided under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 is minimum six months and maximum three years and he is in jail since 09.01.2026. It is further contended that the alleged offences are triable by the learned Magistrate, the charge-sheet has not yet been filed, and the applicant has no criminal antecedents. Learned counsel submits that continued incarceration of the applicant would serve no useful purpose and he is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court; hence, he prays that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submitted that the applicant has been apprehended in connection with a serious offence involving alleged sale and distribution of counterfeit products bearing forged holograms and labels of reputed companies, thereby causing wrongful loss to the companies and deception to consumers. It is contended that during the raid substantial quantity of suspected counterfeit material was seized from the premises and the investigation is still in progress. Learned State counsel submitted that the charge-sheet has not been submitted. It is further argued that at this stage custodial interrogation and detailed investigation are necessary to ascertain the source of the counterfeit goods, the supply chain and the role of each accused person, and therefore, considering the gravity and nature of the allegations, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available in the case, this Court finds that the applicant is stated to be an employee of the firm in question and not the owner or proprietor thereof. The offences alleged are punishable under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and are triable by the learned Magistrate. The maximum punishment prescribed under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is three years. The applicant is in custody since 09.01.2026 and the charge-sheet has not yet been filed. There is no material placed on record to indicate that the applicant has any criminal antecedents or that he is likely to abscond or tamper with the prosecution evidence. Considering the nature of allegations, the period of custody undergone, the fact that investigation is still pending, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that further custodial detention of the applicant is not warranted. 7. Let the applicant– Ishu Yadav, involved in Crime No. 08/2026, registered at Police Station Chowky-Chichola, P.S.-Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence under Section 318(4) of BNS and Section 63 of Copyright Act, 1957, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two 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. 5 (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 them, 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. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice sagrika