1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4530 OF 2009 Vishnu Revnnath Jundare, R/o. Taklimiya, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. ....Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra & another ....Respondents. Mr. R.R. Mantri, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. N.R. Shaikh, A.P.P. for the respondents. CORAM : A.V. POTDAR, J. DATE : 14th January, 2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant is approaching this Court for his release on anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with Cr.No. II-62/2009, registered at Rahuri Police Station for the offences under section 7(1), 2(1), 14-A, 10(g) punishable under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, following 2 the submissions by the learned A.P.P. for State. Also perused the papers of investigation till carried out. In this application, the concerned police officer has filed his affidavit in reply. Also perused the same. Before proceeding further, it is to be noted that even though the case is registered for the offences punishable under the Food Adulteration Act, it was registered on the complaint of complainant in the police station, like of police case and not like the complaint lodged before the Magistrate by the Food Inspector, who is entitled to lodge the complaint for the offences punishable under the Food Adulteration Act in the Court of Magistrate and concerned Food Inspector has not filed the affidavit to oppose this application. 3. In this background, heard rival submissions of both the sides. It is to be noted that the said complaint is registered on the basis of complaint came to be lodged by one Ajit Motiram Sanap, Food Inspector. It is alleged that during the visit to the shop of the present applicant 25 bags of 25 k.g. each of Vay Powder mollified, 31 bags of glucose powder of Goodrich and one bag of maltodextrino (Ridhi Siddi) were found in the shop of present applicant. It is alleged that it is suspected, all these powder is used for adulteration of milk and hence, notices were issued to the applicant to give explanation about the source from where these articles were purchased/took/received by the applicant. It is stated that so far as the explanation offered by the applicant is concerned, it is not satisfactory, hence, the complaint came 3 to be lodged on that basis and the offence came to be registered. 4. During the course of submissions across the bar, it is urged that the complaint is lodged not only on suspicion, but on the basis of surmises. Even though the complaint came to be lodged 40 days back, during this period no material appeared to have been collected against the present applicant in respect of misuse of the articles and to ascertain that whether these articles are used for the adulteration of food in the premise in the shop of the applicant, does not amount that he had committed an offence under the Food Adulteration Act and abeted the persons, who are engaged in the trade of milk adulteration. 5. While opposing this application, it is urged across the bar on the basis of affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer that in past two times anticipatory bail applications of the accused were rejected by the Sessions Court. This is an anti-social offence and no explanation is offered by the present applicant. The applicant had sold the articles stored in the shop for adulteration of milk and lastly and most importantly, it is urged that this applicant tried to tamper the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. I do not find the last submission, which was urged by the learned A.P.P., in the affidavit of the Investigating Officer, filed for opposing the present bail application. 6. Considering these submissions across the bar, one fact which is 4 required serious consideration that if the material found stored in the shop of the present applicant, used for the bakery product and as it is pointed out even though there is only one bakery, it is not prohibited to sell these articles to the other bakery owners residing in the close vicinity, from this angle no investigation appears to be carried out to show that in reality there are no bakery shops or bakery producers in the nearby area, to whom these articles are sold. Apart from it, no material appeared to be collected during investigation to show that there are cases of milk adulteration in that area and there are antecedents credited to this applicant that goods found in his shop were sold to those anti- social elements who are busy in selling adulterated milk. In absence of any material against applicant during investigation, it is to be said that the case is registered on surmises or suspicion and not on reality. In the premises, case is made out to exercise the discretion under section 438 of Cr.P.C. In the premises, the application deserves for following order. ORDER 1. Application is allowed. 2. In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with Cr. No. II-62/2009 registered at Rahuri Police Station, the applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- and on executing the P.R. bond in the like amount. 3. The applicant to co-operate the investigating machinery and to attend Rahuri Police Station whenever required on written requisition by the concerned Investigating officer. 5 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. [ A.V. POTDAR, J. ] ssc/ca4530.09