JUDGMENT : P.S.Rana, J. Present application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail relating to FIR No. 96 of 2015 dated 10.7.2015 registered under Sections 420 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Nadaun District Hamirpur H.P. 2. It is pleaded that petitioner is innocent and petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further pleaded that other co-accused have already been released on bail and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. It is pleaded that petitioner is only bread earner in the family. It is further pleaded that petitioner is the father of two children. It is further pleaded that petitioner will abide by all terms and conditions imposed by the Court and will join investigation as and when required by investigating officer. It is further pleaded that petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of Court. Prayer for acceptance of anticipatory bail application sought. 3. Per contra police report filed. As per police report 43 bags of fake cement was found from the shop of petitioner. There is recital in police report that gang is operating in the area which manufactures fake cement. There is further recital in police report that fake cement would endanger human life and would also endanger walls and lintels raised with fake cement. There is further recital in police report that custodial interrogation of petitioner is essential in present case. Prayer for rejection of anticipatory bail application sought. 4. Following points arise for determination in the present bail application: (1) Whether anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of bail application? (2) Final Order. 5. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of State and also perused entire record carefully. Reasons for finding upon Point No.1. 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case cannot be decided at this stage. Same fact will be decided when the case shall be decided on merits by learned trial Court after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 7. 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case cannot be decided at this stage. Same fact will be decided when the case shall be decided on merits by learned trial Court after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 7. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that any condition imposed by the Court will be binding upon the petitioner and petitioner will join investigation of the case and on this ground anticipatory bail application be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter. It is well settled law that at the time of granting bail following factors are to be considered. (i) Nature and seriousness of offence (ii) The character of the evidence (iii) Circumstances which are peculiar to the accused (iv) Possibility of the presence of the accused at the trial or investigation (v) Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with (vi) The larger interests of the public or the State. See AIR 1978 SC 179 titled Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration. Also see AIR 1962 SC 253 titled The State Vs. Captain Jagjit Singh. In the present case allegations against the petitioner are heinous and grave in nature qua possession of 43 bags of fake cement in the shop of petitioner. Court is of the opinion that no one can be allowed to gain monetary benefit at the cost of general public. Fake cement is sold to the general public for construction purpose. Fake cement will endanger human life and walls and lintels raised with fake cement would likely to collapse leading to casualties of general public. Court is of the opinion that in order to locate the gang which is anufacturing fake cement custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential in the present case. Court is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail at this stage keeping in view gravity of criminal offence. Court is of the opinion that if petitioner is released on anticipatory bail at this stage then interest of general public and State will be adversely effected. 8. Court is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail at this stage keeping in view gravity of criminal offence. Court is of the opinion that if petitioner is released on anticipatory bail at this stage then interest of general public and State will be adversely effected. 8. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that other co-accused already released on bail and on the concept of parity present bail application be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. Other coaccused i.e. driver was simply carrying fake cement in the vehicle and there is no allegation against the driver that driver is active member of the gang which is manufacturing fake cement. On the contrary allegations against the petitioner are very heinous and grave in nature that petitioner is active member of the gang which is selling fake cement to general public. There is positive allegation against the petitioner that 43 bags of fake cement were found from the shop of petitioner. 9. Submission of learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioner that custodial investigation of the petitioner is essential in the present case in order to locate all gang members who are manufacturing fake cement is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that custodial investigation of the petitioner is essential in present case in order to locate the gang which is manufacturing and supplying fake cement to general public. As per police report owner of factory who is manufacturing fake cement is not arrested till date. In view of above stated facts it is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the present case at the initial stage of investigation keeping in view the gravity of criminal offence. Point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2 (Final Order). 10. In view of my findings upon point No.1 present anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 by the petitioner is rejected. Observation made hereinabove is strictly for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and it shall not effect merits of case in any manner. Anticipatory bail application is disposed of. All pending application (s) if any are also disposed of.