Anticipatory bail may be granted where counterfeit goods are seized and custodial interrogation is unnecessary.

The petitioner, proprietor of F.M. Enterprises, sought anticipatory bail in Crime No. 17/2026 of Teradal Police Station.

The complaint alleged that duplicate wire bundles bearing a logo resembling V-Guard’s were being sold at his shop.

During an inspection on 21 February 2026, the police seized the alleged counterfeit goods.

The case was registered under Sections 51(b) and 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The petitioner contended that the goods had been seized, investigation was complete, custodial interrogation was unnecessary, and he had no criminal antecedents.

The State opposed bail, relying on the prima facie allegations of selling fabricated goods.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 17/2026

2. Whether the alleged offences and the circumstances of the investigation required the petitioner’s custodial interrogation

The petition was brought under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides for anticipatory bail.

The alleged offences arose under Sections 51(b) and 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

In considering bail, the Court identified the relevant factors as the nature and circumstances of the offence, the petitioner’s position and antecedents, the risk of absconding or repeating the offence, and the possibility of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence; it also stated that a bail application does not require a mini-trial.

No precedent was cited.

The Court noted that the alleged offences were not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, the alleged counterfeit goods had already been seized, and custodial interrogation was not necessary.

It also considered the petitioner’s lack of criminal antecedents and permanent residence in Teradal.

Applying the stated bail factors, the Court found no sufficient ground at that stage to deny anticipatory bail.

The order imposed conditions, including attendance before the Trial Court, cooperation with the trial, non-interference with witnesses or evidence, restrictions on leaving the police-station jurisdiction without prior intimation, and fortnightly attendance before the Investigating Officer for six months or until filing of the final report, whichever occurred earlier.