Deo Narayan Purvey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26312 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-22 Year-2020 Thana- LAUKAHA District- Madhubani ====================================================== DEO NARAYAN PURVEY Son of Late Ram Bilash Purvey Resident of Village - Dhanushi, P.S. - Laukaha (Lalamaniya O.P.), District - Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Subhash Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Nirmala Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 21-10-2020 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, through video conferencing.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Laukaha (Lalmaniya O.P.) Police Station Case No. 22 of 2020, disclosing offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The allegation, as per the First Information Report, is that a raid was conducted by a team, comprising of Block Agriculture Officer, Jainagar, Block Agriculture Officer, Laukaha and Officer-in-charge of Lalmaniya Police Station, on the shop and godown of the petitioner, but the same were found locked and thereafter, the raiding team raided the house of the petitioner situated at Indo-Nepal border and found that huge quantity of fertilizers and pesticides were kept in the house for

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26312 of 2020(2) dt.21-10-2020 2/2 selling illegally in violation of the Fertilizer Control Order, to the Nepali citizens.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and, referring to Annexure 2, he submits that as per the license, the place of business of the petitioner has been described in column 2 and 3 of the license, which was valid at the time of raid and from perusal of the same, it would be evident that the location of the sale depot is different from that of the godown. He further submits that no independent witnesses have signed on the seizure list and, thus, the seizure is not in accordance with the provisions of law.

Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the materials on record and the fact that there is specific allegation levelled in the First Information Report that the fertilizers and other materials have been recovered from the house of the petitioner, which is not the place of business, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.

This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

Prabhakar Anand/- (Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) U √ T √