Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 2747 (JHR)

SHAMBHU SINGH v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./500/2025 · 2025-01-28

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.500 of 2025 ------ 1. Shambhu Singh, aged about 69 years, S/o Late Ramasraj Singh, R/o village- Bartand, Co-operative Colony, Middle School Street, P.O. + P.S.- Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad 2. Satyam Kumar, aged about 37 years, S/o Late Satyendra Narayan Singh, R/o village- Road Ke Dahina Side, near Shiv Mandir, Khahen, Bhojpur Kahenm, P.O.- Khahen, P.S.- Jagdishpur, District- Bhojpur, Bihar. .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Mukesh Bihari Lal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl.P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated-28-01-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest in connection with FSSIS Case No.349 of 2013 instituted under Sections 59 (III)/26/27 of FSSIS, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.2, respectively being owner and vendor of Panchwati Restaurant, were using adulterated turmeric power which is unsafe for life. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that the petitioners themselves have not made any adulteration nor they had any knowledge of the turmeric power being used in the hotel was adulterated. It is also submitted that the petitioners are not the manufacturers of the seized turmeric power. Drawing attention of this Court towards para-12 of the instant bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. It is further submitted that the petitioners undertake to co-operate with the trial of the case and to furnish sufficient security including cash security. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court below within six weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrendering, they will be enlarged on bail on depositing Rs.10,000/- each as cash security and on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned SDJM, Dhanbad in connection with FSSIS Case No.349 of 2013 with the condition that they will co-operate with the trial of the case and further conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Saroj/