Patna High Court
Shashi Raj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioner, holding that the allegations against him were only speculative and not sufficient to deny bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Shashi Raj Kumar, PACS Chairman, was not named in the FIR relating to the alleged misappropriation of rice from a State Food Corporation godown, where two co-accused were charged under Section 409 read with 34 of the IPC. He contended that the allegations were solely against the named co-accused and that he was being implicated only on suspicion of conspiracy. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, citing similar relief granted to other co-accused in earlier cases. The State Food Corporation opposed, pointing to diary entries suggesting the petitioner's involvement. The Court observed that the thrust of the case was against the two named co-accused and that the petitioner's implication was merely speculative, and therefore ordered his release on bail upon surrender, subject to a bond and conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) BNSS 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether a person not named in the FIR but implicated on suspicion of conspiracy is entitled to anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of parity with co-accused who were granted anticipatory bail is tenable.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 409
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- bail
- conspiracy
- Section 409 IPC
- Section 438 CrPC
- BNSS 2023
- FIR
- co-accused
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33883 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-279 Year-2017 Thana- LAHERIMUHALLA District- Nalanda
======================================================
Shashi Raj Kumar, (PACS Chairman, Mai Farida), Son of Dharmendra Prasad
R/o village- Saidalli, P.S.- Rahui, Dist.- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The District Manager, Bihar State Food Corporation Ltd. Nalanda at
Biharsharif
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : 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 by 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 Corporation’s Godown,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33883 of 2024(19) dt.29-01-2026
2/5
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, who was not named with present
FIR, namely, Ranbir Kumar Sinha, who was Chairman of PACS
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33883 of 2024(19) dt.29-01-2026
3/5
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33883 of 2024(19) dt.29-01-2026
4/5
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 found involved in one criminal case, where he is on
bail.
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33883 of 2024(19) dt.29-01-2026
5/5
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…