In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CRM No. 13102-M of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.5.2010 Sanjay Kumar ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana` .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.D.S.Pheruman, Advocate,for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.208 dated 20.4.2010 under Sections 420, 272, 273 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short), registered at Police Station City Bhiwani, District Bhiwani. The contents of the FIR (Annexure P-2) read as under:- “ It is submitted that a large scale of the business is going on relating to spurious ghee under the name of Singla Agency, which is in the name of Sanjay Singla, situated in the old Grain Market, Halu Bazaar. These persons are cheating the innocent public and they are selling the ghee of the price of 40/- kg at the rate of Rs.200/- per kg and thus they are earning the profit thereof. A spurious ghee is being sold in this firm in the CRM No. 13102-M of 2010 (O&M) -2- brand name of Deep Classic. They are openly looting the general public with the intention to gain the profit by selling the spurious ghee and they are also cheating to the administration. It is therefore, requested to you that the sample be taken from the spurious ghee under the brand name of Deep Classic and that may be analysed and until and till the report of the sample is not received, their goods may be kept sealed. These people use to manufacture the goods without getting the sanction of the Government.” After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out. As per the prosecution story, 147 boxes of Deep Classic and 10 boxes of Dauji Supreme Cooking Medium were recovered from the petitioner. Keeping in view the seriousness of offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. The petitioner might be required for custodial interrogation. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) May 06, 2010 JUDGE anita