Awadh Kishore Prasad v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3155 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-303 Year-2019 Thana- HILSA District- Nalanda ====================================================== Awadh Kishore Prasad S/o Late Chandeshwar Singh R/o village and P.O.- Juniyar, P.S.- Hilsa, District- Nalanda ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.
THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.
Rajdeo Kumar Rajak S/o Late D. Rajak R/o Mohalla- Begampur, Patnacity, Patna- 800009, at present Block Supply Officer-cum-Block Development Officer, P.S.- Hilsa, District- Nalanda ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Shri Prakash Srivastava, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Parmeshwar Mehta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 25-10-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, registered in connection with Hilsa P.S. Case No. 303 of 2019 (G.R. No. 1321 of 2019).
Petitioner is a license holder of a shop of Public Distribution System. As per allegation, on 25.4.2019 and 29.5.2019 he withdrew 639 litres kerosene oil each, but the said kerosene oil was not distributed amongst the beneficiaries. It has also been alleged that there was no entry in the stock register after 27.4.2019.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3155 of 2020(6) dt.25-10-2021 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is innocent and has not committed any offence. He has submitted further that not a single beneficiary came forward to corroborate this fact that he did not receive the kerosene oil being a beneficiary. He has also submitted that some missing entries in the stock register are mere irregularity. On inspection of the Public Distribution shop of the petitioner it appears that the kerosene oil received by the petitioner was not distributed to the beneficiaries. From perusal of the case diary, it appears that the investigation is still going on and the collection of further evidence cannot be ruled out.
In these circumstances, this is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey , J) SONALI/- U T