Patna High Court
Kartik YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Kartik Yadav applied for anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 alleging that he had embezzled 151.96 quintals of rice and 69.67 quintals of wheat from his PDS shop. The petitioner argued that he had been a PDS dealer for over a decade without any prior complaints and claimed the missing grains were stored in another room due to damage to the licensed premises. The State opposed the bail, contending that the allegations involved siphoning of subsidised food grains and that the petitioner had not approached authorities to correct the FIR. The court examined the seriousness of the allegations and the need for a thorough investigation. It concluded that the circumstances did not warrant the grant of anticipatory bail and that the case required further inquiry. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case of alleged embezzlement of food grains under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955
- Whether the allegations against the petitioner constitute sufficient ground to deny anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Essential Commodities Act
- food grain embezzlement
- PDS dealer
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17278 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-926 Year-2025 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura
======================================================
Kartik Yadav, Son of Rasiklal Yadav R/o Village - Bhelwa, Matiahi, Ward
No.02, P.S. - Madhepura, District - Madhepura.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N. K. Agrawal- Sr. Advocate
Mr. Vijay Anand- Advocate
Mr. Roop Kishan- Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta- A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 16-04-2026 1. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in Madhepura P. S. Case No.926 of 2025 registered for the
offences punishable under Section 7 of the E. C. Act, 1955.
3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has antecedent of one case and the
informant (Block Supply Officer, Madhepura) alleges that on
05.09.2025, an inspection of the PDS shop of the petitioner was
carried out in light of the direction issued by the higher
authority. Further, online stock of food-grains on PDS App
displayed quantities of rice as 151.96 quintals and wheat 69.67
quintals while during physical verification of the godown, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17278 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
2/3
rice and wheat was zero, thus alleges that petitioner embezzled
151.96 quintals of rice and 69.67 quintals of wheat of
government subsidized food-grains.
4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant
case by the informant. It is next submitted that petitioner is a
PDS dealer for the last 13-14 years and in these 13-14 years, no
complaint ever came to be filed before the authorities by the
beneficiaries that petitioner is not distributing the grains fairly. It
is next submitted that though in the FIR, it is alleged that 151.96
quintals of rice and 69.67 quintals of wheat was found missing,
but then, the said allegation has been alleged in haste as it has
been specifically pleaded at Para-10 of the anticipatory bail
application that 151.96 quintals rice and 69.67 quintals wheat
was kept in another room as roof of the licensed place was
damaged and the inspecting authority failed to consider the
stock of the said room.
5. Learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the anticipatory
bail application and submits that allegations against the
petitioner is of siphoning of grains meant to be distributed
amongst the beneficiaries. It is submitted that no doubt at Para-
10, it has been pleaded that petitioner had kept the grains in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17278 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
3/3
another room since licensed room was damaged, but then, it is
submitted that it absolutely defies all logic, wisdom and
reasonable human behaviour that if what has been pleaded at
Para-10 is a correct fact, in that event, the petitioner would have
represented before the authorities bringing to their notice that
FIR has been instituted on false allegations as petitioner has the
requisite amount of rice and grains stocked with him, but then,
that is not the case. It is next submitted that if petitioner is
innocent, police will submit final form, but then, the case
requires to be investigated.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail
stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.