Manjar Alam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13932 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-313 Year-2025 Thana- BIRPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== Manjar Alam S/O Nasir Hasan @ Nazir Hassan @ Hazi Nazir Hussain Resident of Village- Lalpur Balbhadrapur, Ward No. 14, Police Station - Birpur, District - Supaul.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arun For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 05-05-2026 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State, Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad. 2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Birpur PS Case No. 313 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(5) and 318(4) of the BNS, 2023 as well as Section 27 of the E.C. Act, 1955. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that an inspection of PDS of petitioner was conducted on 3-9-2025 and 24233.00 Kg. of rice and 7963.00 Kg. of wheat was found short, thus, alleges that rice and wheat was sold in the black market.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13932 of 2026(4) dt.05-05-2026 2/3 petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that the date of inspection is 3-92025 and the FIR came to be instituted on 11-9-2025, i.e., after a delay of 8 days of the inspection, which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is also submitted that if shortage was found, why the informant did not institute the FIR promptly.

5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State, Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there might be some delay in instituting the FIR, but then that by itself does not vitiate the FIR. It is next submitted that a counter-affidavit has been filed wherein it has been pleaded that petitioner was called at the shop and in his presence, the shop was opened when the aforesaid shortage was found, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that when petitioner was present at his shop then why his signature on the inspection report was not taken, on which learned APP submits that there is no pleading to that effect in the anticipatory bail application that signature of the petitioner after inspection was not taken, when it is asserted and submitted that inspection of the shop was conducted in presence of the petitioner and thereafter the aforesaid shortage was found

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13932 of 2026(4) dt.05-05-2026 3/3 and it is a case of black marketing.

6.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T