Criminal Misc.-M No. 14354 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. -M No. 14354 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.8.2011 Sunil Kumar .. Petitioner v. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Abhishek Chautala, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The allegations against the petitioner and his brother-Anil Kumar in the FIR are that they used to buy pure mustard oil and refined oil tins from the market and mix the same with burnt mustard oil and refined oil taken from marriage palaces and sell the same as pure, stating it to be of Tiger brand. In a raid, 45 tins of mixed mustard oil, 21 bottles adulterated mustard oil, 25 tins of mustard oil, 12 tins of refined oil, 6 tins of burnt refined oil and 21 bottles of plastic adulterated oil were recovered from the residence of Anil Kumar. On testing, the oil was found to be adulterated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner in the present case is a taxi driver. He has separate mess from his brother. Even recovery was also effected from the residence of Anil Kumar and not the petitioner. In terms of the order passed by this court, he has Criminal Misc.-M No. 14354 of 2011 [2] already joined investigation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner and his brother, both are carrying on the business of catering. The taxi claimed by the petitioner is, in fact, a four wheeler, which was used by them in their business of catering. The petitioner and Anil Kumar are residing in the adjoining houses. The contents of the oil recovered were got tested from the Food Laboratory and the same were found to be adulterated. Considering the seriousness of allegations, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail. The other accused, namely, Anil Kumar was arrested and has already been released on bail. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the allegations against the petitioner regarding adulteration of edible mustard oil and refined oil, which was being sold in the market, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 19.8.2011 mk