Patna High Court
Md. Jahangir AlamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The Court conditionally granted provisional bail to the petitioner under Section 438(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Jahangir Alam, a senior Deputy Collector who briefly acted as in‑charge District Manager of the Bihar State Food Corporation, was implicated in a case alleging misappropriation of paddy under IPC sections 406, 409 and 420. The prosecution alleged that a rice miller received paddy from the corporation and supplied only a fraction, misappropriating the balance. The petitioner contended that he was not named in the FIR, that the paddy was handed over without a Store Issue Order to prevent loss, and that any lapse was administrative, not criminal. He offered to deposit Rs. 5 lakh in installments pending the case outcome. The Court, applying Section 438(2) of the CrPC, granted provisional bail subject to a bail bond of Rs. 10,000, two sureties, and a deposit of Rs. 2.5 lakh with the balance to be paid in installments, without addressing the merits of the criminal allegations.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 438(2) of the CrPC despite allegations under IPC sections 406, 409 and 420.
- Whether the alleged administrative lapse can be treated as a criminal offence warranting denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 409, 420
Subjects
- bail
- provisional bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Indian Penal Code
- misappropriation
- administrative lapse
- state food corporation
- IPC 406
- IPC 409
- IPC 420
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29707 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-72 Year-2015 Thana- BIHRA District- Saharsa
======================================================
Md. Jahangir Alam S/O Late Kalimullah R/O - House No.57, Gram - Fatepur
Chain, Gangua Ward No.09 Saran, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. The District Manager, Bihar State Food Corporation, Saharsa, Bihar. Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Senior Advocate
Mr.Sourav Suman, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Umeshanand Pandit, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
9 17-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered
for the offence punishable under sections 406, 409 and 420 of
the IPC.
3. Prosecution case in brief is that Kaushal Kishore
Singh, District Manager, SFC, Saharsa submitted written report
to the S.H.O., Bihra P.S. vide letter No.488 dated 16-04-2015
wherein it is alleged that the proprietor of M/S PACS Rice Mill,
Bijapur, Block Sattarkatiya, Sahasa and the District Manager,
SFC, Saharsa jointly executed an agreement for the KHARIF
marketing year 2012-13 and as per agreement the proprietor of
rice mill received 34410.00 quintals Paddy from the Bihar State
Food Corporation and the Miller had to supply 67% of C.M.R.
which is 23054.70 quintal to the BSFC, Saharsa but till the
stipulated period, the Miller supplied only 5131.03 quintal CMR
and misappropriated the rest CMR i.e. 17923,67 quintals valued
at the rate of Rs.2165.56 per quintal comes to the time of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29707 of 2025(9) dt.17-02-2026
2/3
Rs.3,88,14,783.00.
4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the
petitioner is not named in the F.I.R.. The petitioner was posted
in the Saharsa District as a senior Deputy Collector and was
discharging multiple administrative responsibilities, including
being in-charge of Treasury Officer, Urdu Branch, Banking
Branch and other allied duties, apart from regular assignment.
He was given additional charge of the incharge District
Manager, S.F.C., Saharsa for a very short period i.e. 5-10-13 to
18-02-14. Learned counsel submitted that after taking charge, it
came to the petitioner's notice that at certain procurement
centres, namely Sattar Kataiya and Saurbazar, the procurement
centre in-charge and assistant had already handed over paddy to
the miller on the miller's pad without issuance of Store Issue
Order, resulting in discrepancies in stock registers. Concerned
procurement centre officials informed that the quantity of
procured paddy had exceeded storage capacity and there was
imminent risk of damage due to rainfall, therefore, to prevent
wastage of government property, the paddy was handed over to
the miller in anticipation of issuance of Store Issue Order, and
the miller had issued receipts on his own pad only, as such, he
cannot be held responsible for the alleged misappropriation.
Since, petitioner was acting in the capacity of incharge District
Masnager, SFC, Sahrsa, he did not issue any SIO in favour of
any miller. It is submitted that at best it is a case of
administrative lapse on the part of the petitioner. Learned
counsel submits that, without admitting his guilt and without
prejudice to his right and contention, petitioner is ready to
deposit Res. 5 lacs in instalments in the Nazarat of the
concerned Civil Court, subject to outcome of the case.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29707 of 2025(9) dt.17-02-2026
3/3
5. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case, prayer
for bail of the petitioner is allowed. In the event of
arrest/surrender within eight weeks from today, let the
petitioner, mentioned above, be enlarged on provisional bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga in Bihra (Saharsa) Police Station
Case No. 72/2015, subject to the conditions laid down under
section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as on
following conditions:-
(i) At the time of furnishing bail bond, Rs. 2.50 lacs
shall be deposited by the petitioner in the Nazarat of the Court
below.
(ii) Rest amount of Rs. 2.50 lacs shall be deposited by
the petitioner in five equal installments within succeeding five
months.
(iii) If the petitioner complies with the conditions,
court below shall confirm the provisional bail, otherwise court
below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the
petitioner.
6. It is made clear that without going into the merit of
the case, aforesaid order has been passed only for the purpose of
grant of bail and this deposit would be subject to the final result
of the criminal case or recovery case, pending if any.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Shashi
U T
Checking your session…