IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3471 of 2011 RAKESH KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 11.03.2011. Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The mustard oil was seized from the sweet shop of the petitioner which was found to be adulterated. Neither the F.I.R. nor the order of the learned Sessions Judge reflects nature of adulteration. Moreover, it is submitted that the petitioner has purchased branded mustard oil, hence, he can not be held responsible for any adulteration. On the same day some chilly powder was also seized which was also found to be adulterated and in the said case the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the learned court below. The prosecution report only suggests that the - 2 - sample of the mustard oil does not confirm under the prescribed standard so it is adulterated. Considering the aforesaid facts, let the petitioner above named be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today in connection with Case No. B III-10/2010 on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Purnea, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. U.K. (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J)