Raj Kumar RayversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69200 of 2025
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-165 Year-2025 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Vaishali
                 ======================================================
           1.     Raj Kumar Ray S/o Late Binda Ray R/o vill- Chandpura Ward No - 11, P.S.-
                  Raghopur, Distt.- Vaishali
           2.    Dharmveer Kumar S/o Raj Kumar Ray R/o vill- Chandpura Ward No - 11,
                 P.S.- Raghopur, Distt.- Vaishali

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s      :       Mr. N. K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate
                                                   Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   17-01-2026                       Heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners

                   and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

                                2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in

                   connection with Raghopur P.S. Case No.165 of 2025, F.I.R

                   dated 19.06.2025 registered for the offences punishable under

                   Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

                                3.      According to prosecution case, on 19.06.2025

                   under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act on the

                   complaint of the Block Supply Officer, Raghopur. The

                   allegation arises from the 2024 PACS election, in which

                   Shakuntla Devi was elected Chairman of Chandpura PACS,

                   replacing petitioner no. 1, and it was resolved to appoint

                   Mukesh Kumar as PACS Manager in place of petitioner no. 2.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69200 of 2025(5) dt.17-01-2026
                                            2/4




          Despite orders issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hajipur on

          25.03.2025,       02.04.2025,        and     12.04.2025   directing   the

          petitioners to hand over specified e-POS machines along with

          available food grains to the newly elected body, the petitioners

          allegedly failed to do so. It is therefore alleged that the

          petitioners black-marketed 12,410 kg of wheat and 32,441 kg of

          rice from three PDS shops associated with Chandpura PACS.

                      4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, by

          referring to Annexure-2, submits that on cancellation of E-POS

          machine, in respect of two licensees, namely, Harihar Rai and

          Ram Ekwal Rai, the said E-POS machine was transferred in the

          name of these petitioners for making appropriate distribution

          among the beneficiaries. It is the case of the petitioner that the

          E-POS machines were available but the grains were not

          transferred to this petitioner for making appropriate distribution

          among the beneficiaries, despite cancellation of respective

          licenses, for which these petitioners are said to have made

          request to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hajipur, vide letter dated

          05.04.2024.

                      5. It has next been submitted that ignoring such

          requests, the F.I.R., is said to have been registered against these

          persons while the grains are still lying in the go-down of those
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69200 of 2025(5) dt.17-01-2026
                                            3/4




          two licensees, for which no efforts have been made by the

          authorities to get the grain transferred in the name of this

          petitioner and for no prudent reason, the instant F.I.R. has been

          lodged. In this case, case diary was also called for but the

          considerations of these issues does not form part of the

          investigation and the request, which is said to have been made

          by these petitioners for transfer of grains, vide Annexure-2, the

          Investigating Officer seems to have not considered, and even the

          authorities could have ensured transfer of the grains lying with

          the earlier licensees upon such request and the situation of

          lodging of FIR could have been averted.

                      6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for

          anticipatory bail application.

                       7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance,

          accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of

          anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

                       8. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of

          their arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period

          of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released

          on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand)

          with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of

          the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur, in
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69200 of 2025(5) dt.17-01-2026
                                                       4/4




                     connection with Raghopur P.S. Case No.165 of 2025, subject to

                     the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of

                     Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik

                     Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:-

                                  (i) one of the bailors should be the family

                     member/relative of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official

                     document to show his/her bona fide;

                                  (ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every

                     date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two

                     consecutive       dates     without      plausible   reason   will   entail

                     cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;

                                  (iii) the petitioner(s) 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;

                                  (iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any

                     criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty

                     to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.



                                                   (Ajit Kumar, J)
sharun/-

U      T