IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17709 of 2011 Satyendra Kumar Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 2. 29.06.2011. Heard the learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with G.O. Case No. 65 of 2005 registered under Sections 16(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Sections 7, 50(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The Vanaspati seized from the petitioner was sent for chemical analysis when it was found that the sample was not inconformity with the prescribed standard. Hence, it was treated to be adulterated. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no specific adulterating materails have been pointed by analysist. The contention of the petitioner has substance but since the case was instituted in 2005 this court is not inclined to interfere. Let the learned court below consider the regular bail application of the 2 petitioner and try to dispose off the same if possible on the same day keeping in view that the report suggests that adulteration has been inferred on the basis of non- conformity of prescribed standard but no specific adulterated element has been found by the analysist if the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail within a period of four weeks from today. With this observation, this application is disposed off. Let the order be faxed to the learned S.D.J.M., Gaya, in connection with G.O. Case No. 65 of 2005 at the cost of the petitioner. U. K. ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)