JUDGMENT : RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI, J. 1. This is an anticipatory bail moved on behalf of the applicant in relation to F.I.R. No. 87/2024 registered at Police Station Ratanada District Jodhpur, registered for the offence punishable under sections(s) 420 IPC, Section 102, 103,104 Trade Mark Act and Section 63, 65 of Copyright Act. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the application are noted herein-below. 2. Let me briefly mention the facts germane for disposal of present petition. The allegations in the F.I.R. are that on 07.04.2024 when police party raided at the house of Hanuman Prasad Rathi, a large quantity of fake products of branded companies, raw materials, wrappers of various companies and final products were found in his house. The material seized by the police included a large number of wrappers to be used for packing of ghee of branded companies, iron tins, inner pouches, ghee packaging machines as well as salt, tea, detergent and ghee products. 3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently urged that petitioner was not named in the FIR, he was not found at the place of seizure and recovery. The FIR was not lodged by the representatives of the affected companies. Co-accused Hanuman Prasad Rathi has already been released on bail by the trial court under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. 4. It is further argued that petitioner is innocent person and present FIR filed against the petitioner is false and baseless; that the petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a false case; that there is no record to show as to how ingredient of offences of cheating, Trade Mark and Copyright violation is made out against him besides other offences; that his custodial interrogation is not required; that there are no allegations of petitioner tampering with the evidence and nothing is to be recovered from applicant; that co-accused Hanuman Prasad Rathi is already enlarged on bail. Therefore, to protect his life and liberty an order of anticipatory bail may be passed in his favour. 5. Therefore, to protect his life and liberty an order of anticipatory bail may be passed in his favour. 5. From the other side, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has strongly objected the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that on the basis of material collected so far, the investigation officer has reason to believe that petitioner is guilty of offences alleged; There are serious allegations against the applicant of cheating public in general by producing and selling fake products of branded companies and infringement of trade mark and Copyright Act. Learned PP has vehemently submitted that in the absence of custodial interrogation of petitioner, investigation in this case cannot be taken to its logical conclusion and in view of nature of gravity of offence, custodial interrogation of petitioner is essential. He thus, prayed that in the facts of the present case, it is expedient that anticipatory bail application be dismissed. 6. I have appreciated the submissions advanced by the learned defence counsel and learned Public Prosecutor and have carefully perused the material available on record. 7. Applying the dictum and parameters to the instant case as laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat, (2016) 1 SCC 152 and after having heard both the sides at length and on perusal of the Case-diary as well as material on record, it appears prima facie that a large quantity of fake products of branded companies, raw materials, wrappers of brands of various companies and final products were found in house of co-accused. The material seized by the police included a large number of iron tins, inner pouches, ghee packaging machines as well as fake products of salt, tea, detergent and ghee. The investigation has revealed that petitioner Sushil Kumar and principal accused Hanuman Prasad Rathi had been running this business for the past one year and were sharing half of the profit. The offence alleged is a play with the health of public in general at a large scale who pay heavy cost for a branded and trusted product yet get a fake material including eatables which may prove hazardous to their health. 8. It is observed that the petitioner herein is involved in a serious crime. The investigation is still in process. 8. It is observed that the petitioner herein is involved in a serious crime. The investigation is still in process. Thus, the chance of the petitioner escaping the procedure of law, tampering with the evidence or threatening the complainant exists. In my view, since the case is at the threshold and the investigations are underway, it will be practically scuttling the investigation in case the anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner which will create hurdles in arriving at the truth. 9. In view of settled principles, the facts and circumstances of the present case and the case set up against applicant in its entirety, the allegations leveled against the applicant this Court is of prima facie opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail to petitioner. 10. Resultantly, instant application for anticipatory bail is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed. 11. Whatever discussed or observed hereinabove is only a prima facie view and shall not tantamount to any opinion on the merits of the case.