S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail Application No. 2508/2009 Kheta Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of order : 04/05/2009 HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR,J. Mr. Sunil Vyas for the petitioner. Mrs. Chandra Lekha, P.P. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and public prosecutor for the State. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that since two tins of the ghee alleged to have been adulterated have already been recovered by the police and therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. On earlier occasion, on perusal of the order dated 24.3.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, district Pali, the bail application came to be dismissed. After dismissing the earlier bail application, I find absolutely no change in the circumstances. Even from the allegations against the petitioner, it appears that he is involved in adulterating the food specially the ghee and also the allegation under various provisions of the IPC, and therefore, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. The second bail application is therefore, dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp