A lawyer, arguing for the bail of his purchasers in a meals adulteration case, was left befuddled on Tuesday when the Supreme Court docket requested him if he was keen to have his household eat what his purchasers had been promoting.
The bench of justices Indira Banerjee and MR Shah took a grim view of the alleged offences in opposition to the 2 accused, who had been earlier than the highest court docket looking for pre-arrest bail in a case registered final 12 months in Madhya Pradesh.
Prawar Goyal and Vineet Goyal had been made accused in a primary data report (FIR) registered at Neemuch district on the allegations that they had been promoting wheat after sprucing the grains utilizing non-edible golden offset color. Luggage of a number of thousand kilograms of polished wheat had been confiscated from their premises after a raid on December 3, 2020, and the duo was charged underneath the Indian Penal Code for meals adulteration and promoting noxious meals objects.
Advocate Puneet Jain, representing the accused, pressed for the anticipatory bail on the bottom that many of the costs pertaining to meals adulteration had been bailable in nature and subsequently, it won’t serve any objective for his purchasers to be taken into custody first.
Jain added that solely the cost of dishonest was non-bailable for which his purchasers had been required to safe bail from a trial court docket however no such offence was made out as per the FIR.
Additionally Learn | Class 5 woman writes to CJI NV Ramana over Covid, will get a reply
Whereas the lawyer was emphatic that the details of the case warranted launch of his purchasers on bail, the bench had only one poser for Jain: “Will you or your loved ones eat this meals? We are going to think about permitting the bail in case your reply is a sure.”
Because the lawyer took a second to replicate, the court docket requested Jain why it must be troublesome him asking for bail in these circumstances to reply such a fundamental query. “Or is it that allow different individuals die? Why ought to we hassle?” it grilled Jain.
Because the bench mentioned that it was not inclined to provide anticipatory bail in a case like this, Jain selected to withdraw his petition from the court docket.
Final week, one other bench within the prime court docket had refused to grant anticipatory bail to an accused in a meals adulteration case, observing that these offences had been in opposition to the complete society.
“You are attempting to kill not only one individual however the complete society by promoting spurious meals. Such offences can’t be taken flippantly,” the bench of justices BR Gavai and Krishna Murari had commented whereas refusing bail to at least one Dibyalochan Behera.
Behera’s lawyer argued on June four that ghee was not meant for consuming because it was being equipped solely to the temples for lighting lamps.
Amused by the submission, the bench had retorted: “That is simply so good. And what was your chilli sauce for? Was it for adorning the deity or for abhisheka (consecration) of the idols? Not a single product of yours is unadulterated.”