Chandan Kumar @ Chndan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16656 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2021 Thana- TETERHAT District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== CHANDAN KUMAR @ CHNDAN KUMAR Son of Late Shankar Saw Resident of Village - P.O. and P.S.- Tetarhat, Block- Ramgarh Chowk, Distt.- Lakhisarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rabi Bhushan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 22-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within a period of four weeks.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodites Act and Sections 03(3)/05 of the Fertilizer Control Order Act, 1985.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a dealer of urea. The informant alleges that based on the direction of the superior authority the present FIR is being instituted on the allegation that the petitioner indulged in selling urea at a price higher than what was fixed by the government.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16656 of 2022(2) dt.22-09-2022 2/2 has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the FIR does not even remotely disclose that at what rate the petitioner was selling the urea, as such, the allegation in the FIR is cryptic and vague. It is next submitted that an explanation was called for from the petitioner to which he replied but still the same was not taken into consideration and the present FIR came to be instituted. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Tetarhat P.S. Case No. 85 of 2021, S.L. No. 1240 of 2021, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T