Munki Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66281 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-384 Year-2024 Thana- NAWADA MUFFASIL District- Nawada ====================================================== 1.
Munki Devi W/O Balak Manjhi R/O Vill.- Pakariya Mushahari, P.S.- Muffasil, District- Nawadah 2.
Manoj Kumar Manjhi S/O Lakhan Manjhi R/O Vill.-Amarpur, P.S.- Muffasil, District- Nawadah ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Bihar Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 25-02-2026
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Muffasil Police Station Case No. 384 of 2024 disclosing offences under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
3. The FIR lodged by Cooperative Extension Officer, Nawada, alleges that in the financial year 2023-24, the Chairman of the Kharanth PACS and Manager of the Kharanth PACS purchased the crops from 43 farmers. The purchased paddy from 43 farmers was having a total quantity of 5342 quintals but only supplied CMR 2030 against the total CMR
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66281 of 2025(4) dt.25-02-2026 2/3 3668.09. The Chairman and Manager did not supply the CMR against 2381 quintals of paddy, causing loss to the extent of Rs. 52,57,248/-.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case, having not committed any offence in the manner alleged. The Manager as well as the Chairman are authorized to deal with the paddy and the petitioners, being the members of the PACS, do not have any role in the purchase and supply of paddy/rice.
5. Learned counsel for the BSFC vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioners are members of the PACS and are also liable for nonsupply of CMR against the purchased paddy.
6. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that in the FIR, a specific allegation is against the Manager and the Chairman of the PACS who are responsible for purchase of paddy from the farmers and the petitioners being members of the PACS having prima facie no role in the said transaction, I am inclined to grant the petitioners privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. This application is, accordingly, allowed.
8. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66281 of 2025(4) dt.25-02-2026 3/3 their arrest or surrender before the Court below within four weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Nawada, in connection with Muffasil Police Station Case No. 384 of 2024, subject to the condition laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) HarshPandey/- U T