Madhu Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9932 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2020 Thana- AMDABAD District- Katihar ====================================================== Madhu Devi Wife of Rama Nand Sharma Resident of Village - Raipur, P.O.- Pani Kamla, P.S.- Amdabad, District - Katihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sharda Nand Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.G.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 22-12-2021 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Amdabad Police Station Case No. 78 of 2020, disclosing offences under Section 7 of Essential Commotity Act, 1955.

The allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner being the dealer of PDS shop, used to distribute cereals among the beneficiaries in less quantity of 1 k.g.. In this respect, an inquiry was conducted by the order of D.M. and this irregularity was found.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the authorities were not authorized to raid the shop nor to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9932 of 2021(2) dt.22-12-2021 2/2 conduct the inquiry. He has drawn my attention towards the order of the learned Court below in ABP No.562 of 2020 dated 1st July, 2020 whereby the learned Court below has granted anticipatory bail to co-accused, Shamima Khatoon but the learned Court below has rejected anticipatory bail petition of the present petitioner mentioning that in paragraphs No.7, 8 and 9 of the case diary, the witnesses had clearly stated that the petitioner used to distribute less quantity of foodgrains than the prescribed quantity which is not in the case of Shamima Khatoon.

Learned Addl. P.P. has opposed and the prayer for bail.

Considering the aforementioned fact and circumstances, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail, therefore, the prayer for anticipatory bail of this petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey , J) sanjeev/- U T