Patna High Court
SANGITA KUMARIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court held that, in the absence of any material evidence of misappropriation and given the technical error, bail must be granted.
Summary
Sangita Kumari and her husband Abhimanu Kumar were named in an FIR for alleged black‑marketing of essential commodities, based on the duplication of Sangita’s name in an e‑POS system for about 350 ration cards. The petitioners argued that the duplication was caused by a software error and that no actual misappropriation occurred. Government officials, including the Block Supply Officer and Marketing Officer, testified that the error stemmed from incorrect KYC details and a malfunctioning e‑POS machine, and that no commodity was actually diverted. The court found that the FIR was filed solely on suspicion without substantive material and that the technical error could not be ignored. Consequently, the court ordered the release of both petitioners on bail, subject to a bond and sureties, under Section 482(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate basis for granting bail when the FIR is based only on suspicion and a technical error in documentation?
- Whether the alleged duplication of a name in an e‑POS system constitutes an offence under Sections 303(2), 318(4), 316(2), 316(5) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 303(2), 316(2), 316(5), 318(4)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
- Essential Commodities Act — s. 7
Subjects
- bail
- essential commodities
- black marketing
- e‑POS error
- suspicion
- documentation
- FIR
- technical error
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15736 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-250 Year-2024 Thana- PIPRAKOTHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. SANGITA KUMARI W/o Abhimanu Kumar R/o vill - Chhapra, P.S.- Pipra
Kothi, Distt.- East Champaran
2. Abhimanu Kumar S/o Banarash Singh R/o vill - Chhapra, P.S.- Pipra Kothi,
Distt.- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sangeet Deokuliar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Matloob Rab
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
9 07-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and
apprehending their arrest in connection with Pipra Kothi
P.S. Case No. 250 of 2024 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 303(2), 318(4), 316(2),
316(5) of BNS and Section 7 of Essential Commodities
Act.
3. The allegation against petitioners is to print
her name, who is a PDS dealer in approximately 350
ration card, in view of same a suspicion was raised by
informant that same is used for black-marketing of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15736 of 2025(9) dt.07-01-2026
2/4
essential commodities.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners that the repetition of name
took place due to certain software error in e-POS
machine. It is pointed out that it is not a case of
misappropriation of any commodities. It is submitted that
petitioner no. 1 is a lady and even this repetition took
place under wrong advice which was later on blocked at
Block Supply Officer (BSO) level and, therefore, the
maximum this case can be said as an attempt. It is
pointed out that the allegation is related with
documentations and only on the basis of suspicion that
these document may be used further for black marketing
purpose for essential commodities present case was
lodged without any cogent material. It is submitted that
petitioner no. 2 implicated with this case only for the
reason that he is the husband of petitioner no. 1 who is a
PDS dealer. While concluding arguments, it is submitted
that both above named petitioners are of clean
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15736 of 2025(9) dt.07-01-2026
3/4
antecedents.
5. Learned APP while opposing the prayer of bail
could not disputed the aforesaid factual submissions. It is
also submitted after gathering information from Block
Supply Officer (BSO) and Marketing Officer (M.O.), who
are present in Court in person in terms of previous order
of this Court that in actual in want of knowledge the
repetitions due to wrong KYC, took place as petitioner no.
1 made an attempt to connect e-POS with different blank
Adhaar. It is also pointed out that no misappropriation in
actual took place and to the some extent it is also the
error on the part of e-POS machine which was later on
checked by office of Block Supply Officer.
6. In view of aforesaid factual submission and by
taking note of fact as allegation is related with
documentations where the FIR qua black-marketing of
essential commodities was lodged purely on the basis of
suspicion as it is appears from the facial perusal of FIR,
coupled with the fact that the technical error of e-POS
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15736 of 2025(9) dt.07-01-2026
4/4
machine cannot be ignored out rightly as submitted by
officers who are present in Court, accordingly both above-
named petitioner, in the event of their arrest or surrender
before the court below within a period of four weeks, are
directed to be released on bail, furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
CJM, Motihari, East Champaran /concerned Court, where
the case is pending in connection with Pipra Kothi P.S.
Case No. 250 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section 482(2) of BNSS.
7. Presence of all government officers including
BSO and MO is dispensed with.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-
U T
Checking your session…