Patna High Court
Bipin Kumar (PACS Chairman ,Bind)versusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, holding that the allegations against him were only speculative and the primary thrust of the case was against the named co‑accused.
Summary
The petitioner, Bipin Kumar, Chairman of a PACS, was not named in an FIR concerning the alleged misappropriation of 16,768.5 quintals of custom milled rice from a State Food Corporation godown. The FIR named only Ranjit Kumar and Abhay Kumar as accused. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, arguing that the allegations were directed solely at the named co‑accused and that similarly situated persons had already been granted anticipatory bail. The State Food Corporation opposed bail, citing diary entries suggesting the petitioner's involvement in a conspiracy. The Court observed that the thrust of the allegation rested on the two named accused and that the petitioner's implication was based merely on suspicion, and therefore ordered his release on bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) BNSS 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to a person not named in the FIR but alleged to be part of a conspiracy.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged involvement is sufficient to deny bail in view of the allegations against the named co‑accused.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 409
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- FIR
- conspiracy
- Section 409 IPC
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 BNSS
- food corporation
- missing rice
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33222 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-279 Year-2017 Thana- LAHERIMUHALLA District- Nalanda
======================================================
Bipin Kumar (PACS Chairman, Bind), Son of Sri Bishnudeo Chaudhary,
Resident of Village and P.S- Bind, Dist- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The District Manager, Bihar State Food Corporation Ltd. Nalanda at
Biharsharif Nalanda, Biharsarif
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Raj Kishor Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP
For the SFC : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Utkarsh Utpal, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
19 29-01-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State duly assisted learned counsel appearing
for State Food Corporation (in short ‘SFC’).
2. The accused/petitioner is not named in
the FIR and apprehending his arrest in connection
with Laheri P.S. Case No.279 of 2017 lodged for the
offences punishable under Sections 409 read with 34
of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per FIR, which instituted on behalf of
D.M., Bihar Sharif in terms of Letter No.4076 dated
28.06.2017 that while he inspected the State Food
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33222 of 2024(19) dt.29-01-2026
2/5
Corporation’s Godown, Nalanda upon verification,
found that only 59279.50 quintal Custom Milled Rice
(in short ‘C.M.R.’) was found instead of 76203.71
quintals of rice and as such, 16768.50 quintal of rice
was found missing. Standard of rice was also alleged
to be found of compromised quality. The D.M. Bihar
Sharif has directed to lodge the FIR against Ranjit
Kumar, Godown Superintendent-cum-A.G.M. and
Abhay Kumar, Contractual Executive Assistant.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent
and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is
submitted that the thrust of allegation is exclusively
available against co-accused Ranjit Kumar and
Abhay Kumar without expressing even suspicion qua
any other unknown co-accused persons.
5. Arguing further, it is submitted that
named accused person Abhay Kumar has already
granted anticipatory bail by one of the learned co-
ordinate Bench of this Court through Cr. Misc.
No.44788 of 2017 vide order dated 03.11.2017
against whom the specific allegation was raised
through FIR. However, similarly situated co-accused,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33222 of 2024(19) dt.29-01-2026
3/5
who was not named with present FIR, namely, Ranbir
Kumar Sinha, who was Chairman of PACS Ranabigha
was also granted anticipatory bail by one of the
learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court through Cr.
Misc. No.45468 of 2023 dated 03.04.2024. It is
pointed out that both these orders were not
challenged by SFC before Hon’ble Supreme Court
and, therefore, as a matter of judicial parity, this
petitioner also deserves anticipatory bail, as he is
also facing the similar allegation.
6. Arguing further, it is submitted that one
of the similarly situated co-accused namely, Dinesh
Kumar has preferred quashing petition before this
Court through Cr. Misc. No.10632 of 2025, which was
allowed and the FIR qua co-accused Dinesh Kumar
was quashed by this Court on the ground of
prolonged investigation, as still this matter is at the
stage of investigation, despite of the fact that the FIR
in issue was lodged in the year 2017.
7. It is further submitted by learned
counsel that in order to save the real culprit, on
imaginary ground, the PACS Chairman and its office
bearers were implicated with this case, having
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33222 of 2024(19) dt.29-01-2026
4/5
otherwise remote connections with the affairs of the
State Food Corporation’s godown as same was not
under the control of petitioner. It is submitted that all
such facts was clarified during investigation and in
this connection he drawn attention of this Court
towards paragraph 286 and 288 of the case diary. It
is thus finally submitted that save and except
suspicion qua conspiracy being a PACS Chairman
nothing survives against this petitioner. It is
submitted that the petitioner claimed clean
antecedent.
8. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned
counsel appearing for the SFC while opposing the
prayer of bail drawn attention of this Court towards
paragraph Nos. 60 of case diary along with para 185
and 186, which suggest that the petitioner was also
involved in conspiracy but, fairly conceded that he
was not named in FIR and also could not disputed
that the similarly situated co-accused persons were
granted anticipatory bail by learned co-ordinate
Bench of this Court including named co-accused
person.
9. In view of aforesaid factual submission
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33222 of 2024(19) dt.29-01-2026
5/5
and by taking note of fact as the thrust of allegation
is available against two named co-accused persons,
as discussed aforesaid, who were in controlling
affairs of the State Food Corporation’s godown,
Nalanda coupled with the fact that the implication of
this petitioner prima facie raised on the basis of
suspicion being conspirators, accordingly, the
petitioner, above-named, is directed to be released
on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender in the
court below within a period of four weeks, on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each
to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif in connection
with Laheri P.S. Case No.279 of 2017, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘CrPC’)/under
Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’).
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…