Patna High CourtCR. MISC./24523/2016allowed

Subham Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2017-06-21Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.24523 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -25 Year- 2016 Thana -BAIKUNTHPUR District- GOPALGANJ ======================================================

1. Subham Kumar, Son of Haridwar Prasad, Resident of Dighwa Uttar, P.S.- Baikunthpur, P.O- Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vikas Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shastry (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 21-06-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Baikunthpur P.S. case No. 25 of 2016 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

The informant, Block Supply Officer, alleged that the PDS shop run by the Dighwa North PACS was inspected and out of 198.50 quintals of rice and wheat supplied to the PACS under Aantodaya scheme only 29 quintals of rice and 3.5 quintals of wheat were found in the godown. The godown was closed and it was informed that the seller was out of station. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the nephew of the Chairman of the PACS and PDS shop was being run by the PACS. The petitioner has no manner of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24523 of 2016 (9) dt.21-06-2017 2/2 concern with the PDS shop. Vide order dated 20.06.2016, the petitioner was granted provisional bail and, at the same time, he was directed to submit the entire papers before the Investigating Officer but no report was submitted. The District Magistrate vide his letter No. 776 dated 28.04.2017 found that the food grains were distributed among the beneficiaries. It is submitted that in pursuance of the order of the District Magistrate the license of the shop was restored as no irregularity was found. Considering the facts aforesaid, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 20.06.2016 passed in this case is confirmed. The petitioner is allowed to remain on bail on the same bail bonds.

This anticipatory bail petition is, accordingly, allowed. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T