Baskinath Rai @ Basukinath RaiversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14441 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-189 Year-2025 Thana- TISIAUTA District- Vaishali
                 ======================================================
                 Baskinath Rai @ Basukinath Rai S/o Late Harendra Rai R/o Village- Tisiauta,
                 P.S.- Tisiauta, District- Vaishali

                                                                                     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                         Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   31-03-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case

                   registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5) and

                   318(4) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 7 of the Essential

                   Commodities Act.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant

                   alleges that on 22.11.2025 at about 11:30 AM, PDS shop of the

                   petitioner was inspected and the same was found closed and the

                   digital stock showed 140.482 quintals of wheat and 66.138

                   quintals of rice, but physical stock was much lower (16.5

                   quintals of wheat and 66 quintals of rice), it is further alleged

                   that petitioner did not hand over 805.51 quintals rice and 198.52
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14441 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
                                            2/3




          quintals wheat to the new dealer i.e.                daughter-in-law of

          deceased, Jagdish Chaudhary who was appointed as a new

          dealer, it is also alleged that certain technical discrepancies also

          occurred in the POS machine of the deceased dealer.

                       4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

          petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the

          informant, it is next submitted that no show cause was issued to

          the petitioner prior to the instant FIR being instituted. It is

          further submitted that had a show cause been issued to the

          petitioner, the petitioner would have explained the discrepancies

          based on which the FIR would not have been instituted. It is

          also submitted that petitioner is also a PDS dealer and no

          complaint ever was instituted against him by the authorities or

          beneficiaries. It is also submitted that a specific pleading has

          been made at Para 11 and 12 of the anticipatory bail application

          that Raj Kumar Chaudhary son of Late Jagdish Chaudhary

          handed over the POS machine to Dhiraj Kumar, who in turn

          handed over the machine charger to the petitioner on 19.11.2022

          and the receipt dated 19.11.2022 issued by Dhiraj in favour of

          petitioner makes no mention whatsoever of any quantity of food

          grains and records only and handing over of the POS machine

          and charger. It is also submitted that petitioner will not abscond
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14441 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
                                                        3/3




                      rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove his innocence.

                                   5. Learned       A.P.P.    for     the   State   opposes   the

                      anticipatory bail application of the petitioner.

                                   6. Considering the submissions made by the learned

                      counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the

                      event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks

                      from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail

                      bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties

                      of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial

                      court where the case is pending/successor court in connection

                      with Tisiauta P.S. Case No. 189 of 2025 subject to the

                      conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of BNSS.

                                   7. Accordingly,         the    instant    anticipatory     bail

                      application stands allowed.



                                                        (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-

U      T