Dharmlal Yadav @ Dharamlal YadavversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.409 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-318 Year-2025 Thana- SAUR BAZAR District- Saharsa
                 ======================================================
                 Dharmlal Yadav @ Dharamlal Yadav S/O Late Vaso Yadav R/O Village-
                 Khera, Nado, PO- Garhia, PS- Saur Bazar, District- Saharsa
                                                                              ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                       ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Devashish Giri
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Parmeshwar Mehta
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   28-01-2026                  Heard the parties.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

                   with Saur Bazar P.S. Case No. 318 of 2025, registered for the

                   offences punishable under Section 7 of the Essential

                   Commodities Act, 1955.

                                3. Based upon the written report, the prosecution

                   alleges that on the fateful day, the informant, who is said to be

                   Supply Inspector of Sour Bazar, inspected the Fair Price Shop of

                   the petitioner. However, during physical inspection, it was found

                   that there was no foodgrains available in the godown, though as

                   per the record, 29.99 quintals of wheat and 126.23 quintals of

                   rice should be kept in the godown. On query, the petitioner

                   could not able to produce any proof of availability of foodgrains

                   and it is found that the foodgrains have been used or sold in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.409 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
                                            2/4




          blackmarket.

                       4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that

          the petitioner is a Fair Price Shop Dealer since 1978 and prior to

          institution of the present case, there had never been any

          irregularity found or alleged against him. In fact, the shop in

          question consists of two rooms, out of which one is exclusively

          used as godown for storage of foodgrains and the another room

          which is also a godown but primarily used for weighing and

          distributing the foodgrains in which very meager amount of

          foodgrains are kept. On the date of inspection, the petitioner had

          gone for medical advice and the entire inspection was done in

          his absence. Soon after institution of the FIR, the petitioner has

          filed an appeal/representation before all the authorities

          concerned and it is categorically stated that as per e-POS

          machine, still in the godown of the petitioner there are

          altogether 173.43 quintals of rice and 41.73 quintal of wheat;

          hence inspection report is based upon incorrect fact. For the

          offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, the

          punishment is provided upto seven years and, as such, the

          petitioner ought to be given the benefit of Section 35(1) of the

          BNSS. However, the same has not been done; all the more the

          Supply Inspector was also required to follow the prescription as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.409 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
                                            3/4




          provided under Section 103 of the BNSS in terms with Section

          31 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control)

          Order, 2016, the same has also not been done. The petitioner

          bears fair antecedent.

                       5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State

          vehemently opposed the bail application.

                       6. Having considered the submissions advanced by

          the learned Advocates for the respective parties and taking note

          of the fact that the FIR has been instituted only under Section 7

          of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, besides non

          compliance of Section 103 of the BNSS and the petitioner is a

          septuagenarian having fair antecedent and claiming the presence

          of required food grains as per the e-POS Machine, let the

          petitioner abovenamed be released on bail, in the event of his

          arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four

          weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this

          order, upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/- (twenty

          thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the

          satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa in

          connection with Saur Bazar P.S. Case No. 318 of 2025, subject

          to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya

          Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with the further condition that
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.409 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
                                                        4/4




                      one of the bailors shall be the own/close family members of the

                      petitioner.



                                                  (Harish Kumar, J)
Anjani/-
U       T