ORDER Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. - Apprehending their arrest, the two petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with GOCR Case No. 10 of 2014 registered under Sections 27 (b), 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned Addl. PP for the State. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner no. 1 is the proprietor-cum-chemist of M/s New Lab Industry, Patna and petitioner no. 2 is the chemist of M/s New Lab Industry, Patna and they have allegedly supplied NEOFEX-P Cough Expectorant (as per label) to one M/s Abhishek Enterprises and the said M/s Abhishek Enterprises in turn has supplied the said drug to Sadar hospital, Deoghar, which on complaint was seized by the Drug Inspector and was sent for analysis to the Jharkhand State Drugs Testing Laboratory, Namkom ,Ranchi. The test report reveals that the drug was not of the standard quality. There were three shortcomings- i) Though as per claim the volume of drugs should have been 100 ml but in fact 89.0 ml drug was found in the bottle. ii) On analysis, it was found that though each 5 ml. average should contain Chlorpheniramine Maleate- 90% - 110% but it was found only of 71.5%. iii) Aluminum Choloride should have been between 90% to 110%, but the same was found of only 18.37%. 4. The drug inspector filed complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar in which the petitioners have been arraigned as accused persons. Learned counsel further submitted that allegations against the petitioners are all false. Drawing the attention of the Court to invoice produced by M/s Abhishek Enterprises and another invoice claimed by the petitioners, to be the original invoice of M/s New Lab Industry the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is discrepancies in the two invoices. It was further submitted that in the invoice produced by M/s Abhishek Enterprises (kept at annexure 3 at running page 68 of the brief) no rubber stamp has been affixed on behalf of M/s New Lab Industry. It was also submitted that the procedure, prescribed under Section 23 Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940, to be adopted after seizure and for analysis of the sample has not been followed by the drug Inspector. It was also submitted that the procedure, prescribed under Section 23 Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940, to be adopted after seizure and for analysis of the sample has not been followed by the drug Inspector. Hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. 5. The learned Addl. PP opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that in the samples, name of the M/s New Lab Industry has been printed as manufacturers. At this stage, no finding can be given as to which of the two invoices kept at annexure 3 and 4 respectively is the proper invoice. Admittedly, the drug seized does not confirm to prescribed quality. Hence, keeping in view the seriousness of the offence of supplying drugs of nonstandard quality to a government hospital and the consequence thereof to the patients to whom it is administered, the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. 6. Considering the submissions of the counsels and seriousness of the offence, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners stand rejected.