Sabit Lal Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.5100 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -689 Year- 2016 Thana -MADHEPURA District- MADHEPURA ====================================================== Sabit Lal Yadav, S/o Late Chhotelal Yadav, resident of Village- Khopaitt Tariyahi, P.S.- Madhepura, District- Madhepura. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER ------------- 20-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Madhepura P.S. Case No.689 of 2016 registered under Sections 420 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code besides Section 7 of the E.C. Act, pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura.

The accusation is that several irregularities in distributing the grains under the Public Distribution System Scheme was committed by this petitioner, who was Fair Price Shop dealer under the Public Distribution System and, thereafter, the licence of the petitioner of the Fair Price Shop was cancelled.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5100 of 2017 (2) dt.20-03-2017 2/2 In that course, an attempt was made to verify the stock register of the godown of the petitioner but the petitioner was found absence and in this absence, the lock of godown of the petitioner was sealed and at that time, in the godown of the petitioner, 130-140 bags of wheat and rice were seen from the window thereof but, later on, the same was removed breaking the wall of the godown. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case after cancellation of his Fair Price Shop under the Public Distribution System with an ulterior motive.

Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks from today and pray for regular bail, which shall be considered by the trial court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U T