Sumit Kumar @ Sintu Gupta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57453 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-213 Year-2021 Thana- PIPRA District- Supaul ====================================================== Sumit Kumar @ Sintu Gupta Son of Late Gopal Gupta Resident of VillagePipra, P.S.- Pipra, District- Supaul. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Advocate For the State :

Mr. H.A. Khan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 11-07-2022 Heard Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Uday Chand Prasad for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No.213 of 2021, registered for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant got information that there was storage of government grain in the godown of Gayatri Trading. The informant raided the place and found 45 bags of Arba rice on a vehicle standing outside the godown and 125 bags of raw rice in the godown. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the owner of Maa

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57453 of 2021(2) dt.11-07-2022 2/2 Gayatri Trading and he does business of grain having G.S.T. from Central Government (Annexure-2). It is submitted that the petitioner has purchased the aforesaid raw rice from M/s Hassan Rice Mill and Trading Company, Parora, Begusarai which was found in his godown at the time of raid. The recovered rice is not of government rice rather it is purchased by the petitioner validly. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in paragraph-3 of the bail application. The learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, let petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Supaul in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No.213 of 2021, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J.) Sanjay/- U T