Patna High Court

Dilip BhuiyanversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 17 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL GRANTED
Bench: SHAILENDRA SINGH

Holding

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail.

Summary

The petitioner, Dilip Bhuiyan, a public distribution system dealer, feared arrest in a case under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act after a surprise inspection revealed a discrepancy between POS records and actual grain stock. A show‑cause notice was issued, and his licence was cancelled within days, prompting him to seek anticipatory bail. The State opposed the bail, arguing the suspicion of black‑marketing. The Court examined the haste and lack of proper seizure or inspection report, finding the circumstances suitable for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.20,000 bond with two sureties, invoking Section 482(2) of the CrPC.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the pending case under the Essential Commodities Act.
Whether the actions of the Block Supply Officer constitute sufficient grounds for arrest.
Whether the failure to respond to the show‑cause notice justifies denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482(2)
Essential Commodities Act — s. 7

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Essential Commodities Act
Section 7
Section 482
public distribution system
black marketing
license cancellation
bail bond

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7884 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-232 Year-2025 Thana- DEV District- Aurangabad
                 ======================================================
                 Dilip Bhuiyan, S/o Soharai Bhuiyan, Resident of Village - Kantari, P.S - Deo,
                 District - Aurangabad

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Ashok Kumar No.6, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   17-02-2026                  1. Heard the parties.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

                   with Deo P.S. Case No. 232 of 2025 dated 13.09.2025 registered

                   for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential

                   Commodities Act.

                                3. The main submissions advanced by the petitioner’s

                   counsel are that, on the alleged day, the petitioner was a Public

                   Distribution System dealer at Village Kantari, on that day, the

                   Block Supply Officer conducted a surprise inspection of the

                   petitioner’s shop and, merely upon finding some discrepancy

                   between the quantity of food grains shown in the POS machine

                   and the quantity of food grains actually found in the petitioner’s

                   shop, it was suspected that the petitioner was involved in

                   irregularities, thereafter, the petitioner was issued a show cause
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7884 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
                                            2/3




          notice to file his response, and merely on account of his failure

          to submit a reply, he was suspected of being involved in the

          black marketing of food grains meant to be supplied as

          subsidized food grains to the people through the P.D.S. shop.

          However, at the time of inspection, neither was any register of

          the petitioner’s shop seized, nor was any separate inspection

          report prepared. Further, the show cause notice was issued on

          08.09.2025 and was served upon the petitioner on 10.09.2025,

          and on 12.09.2025, the petitioner’s license was cancelled, which

          shows the haste on the part of the Supply Officer in taking

          coercive action against the petitioner.

                       4. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed

          the bail prayer of the petitioner.

                       5. Considering the above submissions and the pleas

          taken by the petitioner, in my opinion, it is a fit case for

          anticipatory bail to the petitioner Accordingly, let the petitioner

          named-above, in the event of his arrest/surrender before the

          learned court below within a period of six weeks from today, be

          released on anticipatory bail in connection with Deo P.S. Case

          No. 232 of 2025            on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/-

          (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount

          each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, subject to the
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7884 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
                                                          3/3




                        conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.



                                                  (Shailendra Singh, J)
Rajiv/-

U         T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

Parmeshwar Mehta