Sanjiv Kumar Paudar @ Sanjiv Kumar Poddar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30885 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2026 Thana- BHAPTIAHI District- Supaul ====================================================== 1.
Sanjiv Kumar Paudar @ Sanjiv Kumar Poddar S/o Rambilas Paudar R/o vill - Shahpur Prithvipatti, P.S.- Bhaptiyahi, Distt.- Supaul. 2.
Ful Kumar Paudar @ Ful Kumar Poddar S/o Rambilas Paudar R/o vill - Shahpur Prithvipatti, P.S.- Bhaptiyahi, Distt.- Supaul. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Pramod Mishra, Advocate Mr. Suraj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ajay Kumar No. 2, APP For the victim :
Mr. Saurav Barial, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER 12-05-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The accused/petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with Bhaptiyahi P.S. Case No. 15 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(3), 316(5), 336(3) and 318(4) of BNS, 2023.
3. As per FIR, petitioners alleged to withdraw the ration against the name of dead person from the shop of his father, who is a PDS dealer.
2/4
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners were implicated falsely on the instance of one co-villager, namely, Ram Sundar Paudar, with whom the petitioners in inimical terms out of different village issues. It is submitted that there is no personal grievance of said Ram Sundar Paudar and merely on the basis of the documents what he said to obtained from different source, the present implication was raised. It is submitted that this type of illegal withdraw of food grains is not possible, for the reason that the ration distributed amongst consumers after matching of their thumb impression. However, it is submitted that to negotiate the matter under police pressure, the petitioners deposited sum of Rs. 9,847/- with government treasury equivalent to cost of rice, which was alleged to be withdrawn.
5. Explaining criminal antecedent, it is submitted that petitioners found involved in four criminal
3/4 cases, where in one of the similar case after investigation police found false and closure report was submitted. It is pointed out that all those cases are of different nature, where petitioners are on bail
6. Learned APP, duly assisted by learned counsel Mr. Saurav Barial, appearing on behalf of the informant opposed the prayer of bail, however, he could not submitted satisfactorily that how without matching with thumb impression, the ration in issue was withdrawn against the name of dead person.
7. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by taking note of fact as prima facie matter appears settled now as petitioners admittedly deposited cost equivalent to withdrawn ration with the government treasury, accordingly, both above named petitioners, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned trial Court, within a period of four weeks of the order, is directed to be released on bail furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties
4/4 of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul/concerned Court, where the case is pending in connection with Bhaptiyahi P.S. Case No. 15 of 2026 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) veena/- U T