Ravi Kumar @ Pro. Ravi Kumar @ Proprietor Ravi Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34006 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-83 Year-2026 Thana- LAURIA District- West Champaran ====================================================== Ravi Kumar @ Pro. Ravi Kumar @ Proprietor Ravi Kumar S/o Lalbabu Prasad Resident of Village- Lauriya, Ward No. 02, P.S.- Lauriya, DistrictWest Champaran, Proprietor of M/S Hariom Khad Bhandar, Hanuman Chowk, P.S.- Lauriya, District- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Agricultural Co-ordinator-cum-Fertiliser Inspector, Lauriya, West Champaran Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Madhukar Anand, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 21-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Lauriya P.S. Case No. 83 of 2026 dated 11.02.2026 registered for the offence punishable under Section/s 318(4), 316(2), 336(2), 336(3) of the B.N.S. and Section 7 of the E.C. Act.
3. As per prosecution case, the allegation, in brief, is that pursuant to the directions of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Narkatiyaganj and the District Agriculture Officer, an enquiry team inspected the godown of M/S Hariom Khad Bhandar, whose licence had already been cancelled on 19.12.2025 and
2/4 recovered 1059 bags of fertilizers stored therein. It is alleged that despite cancellation of licence, the proprietor Ravi Kumar illegally stored the fertilizers for the purpose of hoarding and black marketing.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged in the F.I.R. It is submitted that petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Hariom Khad Bhandar which firm was granted license to carry out the business of a dealer in fertilizer through license no. D-SL20318042475693, for a period from 01.04.2024 to 31.03.2029. It is next submitted that on the basis of certain information based on conjectures and surmises, the petitioner's license is said to have been cancelled by showing difference in quantity in POS machine in relation to the stock in the warehouse and, as also, for having sold out fertilizers without giving any chance to explain the actual position. It is the case of the petitioner that all of a sudden, vide letter dated 19.12.
2025, the petitioner was directed to deposit the POS machine, which the petitioner had complied and the shop/godown was sealed.
3/4 and frivolous. It is also the case of the petitioner that against cancellation, there is already an appeal pending and all these issues, for which the First Information Report has been registered, can be gone into by the authorities in the said statutory appeal, which has been preferred by this petitioner.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that all the issues may be considered in appeal and the petitioner is required to place all such materials which would be essential for ventilating his grievances in the pending appeal, let the petitioner, above named, be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from today on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisoinal Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran in connection with Lauriya P.S. Case No. 83 of 2026, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. as well as the following conditions: (i) One of the bailors should be the family member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide
4/4 official document / personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide; (ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J) rishi/- U T