Patna High Court
Manjar AlamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Manjar Alam applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case (PS‑313/2025) for alleged black‑marketing of rice and wheat under Sections 316(2), 316(5) and 318(4) of the Bihar N.S. Act, 2023 and Section 27 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The petitioner claimed a clean record and argued that the inspection on 3‑Sept‑2025 found a shortage, but the FIR was lodged only on 11‑Sept‑2025, a delay that, in his view, undermined the prosecution’s case. The State contended that the delay did not vitiate the FIR and produced a counter‑affidavit stating the petitioner was present during the inspection when the shortage was discovered. The court examined the arguments, noted the seriousness of the alleged offences and the lack of any material showing that the delay rendered the FIR invalid, and consequently refused to grant anticipatory bail. The application for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged black‑marketing of essential commodities.
- Whether an eight‑day delay between the inspection and the filing of the FIR vitiates the FIR and warrants bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s presence during the inspection and the absence of his signature on the inspection report affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bihar N.S. Act — s. 316(2), 316(5), 318(4)
- Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — s. 27
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- delay in FIR
- essential commodities
- black marketing
- inspection report
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13932 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-313 Year-2025 Thana- BIRPUR District- Supaul
======================================================
Manjar Alam S/O Nasir Hasan @ Nazir Hassan @ Hazi Nazir Hussain
Resident of Village- Lalpur Balbhadrapur, Ward No. 14, Police Station -
Birpur, District - Supaul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arun
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 05-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State, Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Birpur PS Case No. 313 of 2025, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(5) and 318(4) of
the BNS, 2023 as well as Section 27 of the E.C. Act, 1955.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that an inspection of PDS of petitioner was conducted on
3-9-2025 and 24233.00 Kg. of rice and 7963.00 Kg. of wheat
was found short, thus, alleges that rice and wheat was sold in the
black market.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13932 of 2026(4) dt.05-05-2026
2/3
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that the date of inspection is 3-9-
2025 and the FIR came to be instituted on 11-9-2025, i.e., after a
delay of 8 days of the inspection, which casts an aspersion on
the case of the prosecution. It is also submitted that if shortage
was found, why the informant did not institute the FIR
promptly.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, Sri Chandra Bhushan
Prasad, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner
and submits that there might be some delay in instituting the
FIR, but then that by itself does not vitiate the FIR. It is next
submitted that a counter-affidavit has been filed wherein it has
been pleaded that petitioner was called at the shop and in his
presence, the shop was opened when the aforesaid shortage was
found, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that when petitioner was present at his shop
then why his signature on the inspection report was not taken,
on which learned APP submits that there is no pleading to that
effect in the anticipatory bail application that signature of the
petitioner after inspection was not taken, when it is asserted and
submitted that inspection of the shop was conducted in presence
of the petitioner and thereafter the aforesaid shortage was found
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13932 of 2026(4) dt.05-05-2026
3/3
and it is a case of black marketing.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.