Patna High Court
Munna YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court grants anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to payment of Rs.4,12,100 in two installments and compliance with specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Munna Yadav, was arrested in connection with a case under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for alleged misappropriation of wheat and rice allocated to a public distribution system. The prosecution alleged that he, as Chairman of the Rampur PACS, diverted the food grains, while the petitioner contended that any shortfall was due to labor shortages and expressed willingness to pay the alleged amount of Rs.4,12,100 in two installments. Both parties agreed that the petitioner would appear before the investigating authority and settle the dues. The Court, noting the petitioner’s clean record and his undertaking to pay, considered whether anticipatory bail was appropriate. It granted anticipatory bail subject to payment of the stipulated amount in two installments and a series of conditions, including furnishing a bail bond, sureties, and cooperation with the investigation. Failure to comply would lead to cancellation of the bail bond.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner accused under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act
- Whether the petitioner’s willingness to pay the alleged amount and appear before the authority justifies bail
- What conditions should be imposed on the grant of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Essential Commodities Act — s. 7
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Essential Commodities Act
- misappropriation
- food grains
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31341 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-79 Year-2025 Thana- BHANGHA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Munna Yadav S/O Jaychand Yadav @ Jay Chandra Yadav Resident Of
Village- Behari Chapariya Tola, P.s.- Bhangaha, Dist.- West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corp. Ltd., Patna Through its Managing
Director
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashank Chandra, Advocate
: Mr. Nitish Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP
For the BSFC : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
: Mrs. Manju Kumari, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 07-05-2026 Heard Mr. Shashank Chandra, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mrs. Manju Kumari, learned counsel
representing the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corp. Ltd.
beside learned APP.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Bhangha P.S. Case No. 79 of 2025 registered
for the offence under Sections 7 of the Essential Commodities
Act, lodged on 24.08.2025 by the informant, Supriya Kumari.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that the petitioner being the Chairman of the Rampur PACS and
21.04 quintals of wheat and 84.30 quintals of rice to be supplied
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31341 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
2/4
but sensing that the petitioner has misappropriated the said food
grant, the F.I.R. on the instruction of the Superior Authority.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due
to shortage of labour sometime stock records are not uploaded,
there was no intention to misappropriate, to show his bonafide,
the petitioner is ready to pay the equivalent amount of
Rs.4,12,100/- by way of Demand Draft and further is also ready
to appear before the authority and if it is found that any further
amount is due, the same shall also be cleared. However, the
amount being large, he be allowed to pay it in two installments.
5. Learned counsel representing the Corporation
though opposes the prayer submitting that he has
misappropriated the food grains, submits that if the petitioner is
ready to pay and appear before the authority, appropriate order
can be passed.
6. Taking into account the submissions of the parties,
though allegation is there, the petitioner had given and
undertaking that he shall be providing the Demand Draft of
Rs.4,12,100/- and further shall be appearing before the
informant to satisfy him/her, has no criminal antecedent, this
Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail
subject to payment of Rs.4,12,100 in two installments as under:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31341 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
3/4
“(i) Rs.2,12,100/- at the time of execution of
bail bond;
(ii) Rs.2,00,000/- by 10th of June, 2026;
(iii) failure to pay the aforesaid amount, the
State shall take steps for cancellation of bail
bond.
(iv) shall appear before the authority.
7. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of
arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the
receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bettiah,
in connection with Bhangha P.S. Case No. 79 of 2025 subject to
the following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official
document (Aadhar Card/Voter Id/Driving License/Pan Card) to
show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall be appearing before the Police
Station as and when required for cooperating in the
investigation;
(iii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31341 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
4/4
before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her
bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iv) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.