Patna High Court
ANIL PRASADversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, directing his release on bail upon surrender, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) BNSS 2023.
Summary
Balram Singh, Chairman of Kariyanna PACS, was implicated in a FIR (Laheri PS Case No.279 of 2017) concerning missing rice from a State Food Corporation godown, although his name does not appear in the FIR. The FIR names Ranjit Kumar and Abhay Kumar as the primary accused for the alleged loss of 16,768.50 quintals of rice. Singh sought anticipatory bail, arguing that the allegations pertain solely to the named co‑accused and that similarly situated co‑accused have already been granted anticipatory bail. The State Food Corporation contended that Singh was involved in a conspiracy, but conceded he was not named in the FIR. The Court held that the thrust of the allegation is against the named co‑accused and, on the basis of mere suspicion, granted Singh anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) BNSS 2023.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate basis for granting anticipatory bail to a person not named in the FIR but alleged to be part of a conspiracy?
- Whether the existence of similarly situated co‑accused who have been granted anticipatory bail mandates the same relief for the petitioner.
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
- conspiracy
- FIR
- Section 409 IPC
- Section 438 CrPC
- BNSS 2023
- State Food Corporation
- PACS Chairman
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15681 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-279 Year-2017 Thana- LAHERIMUHALLA District- Nalanda
======================================================
Balram Singh (Chairman, Kariyanna PACS), Son of Late Kesho Singh,
Resident of Village- Karianna, Police Station- Silao, Dist.- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The District Manager, State Food Corporation, Nalanda at Biharsharif
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Narain, Senior Advocate
Mr. Rabi Bhushan Prasad No. 1, Advocate
Mr. Vijay Prakash Bhargava, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No.1, APP
For the SFC : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
19 29-01-2026 Heard Mr. Rajendra Narain, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No.1,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State duly assisted
by Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15681 of 2024(19) dt.29-01-2026
2/5
while he inspected the State Food 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. Mr. Rajendra Narain, learned senior 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,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15681 of 2024(19) dt.29-01-2026
3/5
similarly situated co-accused, 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 Mr.
Narain 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 Mr. Narain 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15681 of 2024(19) dt.29-01-2026
4/5
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15681 of 2024(19) dt.29-01-2026
5/5
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…