Patna High Court
Sonu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail as the FIR is contradictory and no prior coercive action was granted.
Summary
The petitioner, Sonu Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 alleged that he was involved in black marketing of rice and wheat. The petitioner, a PDS dealer authorized to run another dealer's shop, contended that the alleged shortage pertained to the previous dealer and that the FIR was contradictory. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the black‑marketing allegation. The Court noted that no coercive action had been previously granted and that the FIR’s first paragraph conflicted with its operative part. Consequently, the Court ordered the petitioner’s release on anticipatory bail, subject to a bond of Rs.30,000 and conditions under Section 2(1)(d) and Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail is warranted when the FIR under the Essential Commodities Act is internally contradictory.
- Whether the petitioner can be held liable for alleged black marketing of rice and wheat.
- Whether the provisions of the BNSS, 2023, particularly Sections 2(1)(d) and 482(2), apply to grant anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- BNSS, 2023 — s. 2(1)(d), 482(2)
- Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — s. 7
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Essential Commodities Act
- black marketing
- PDS dealer
- FIR contradiction
- BNSS 2023
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7951 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-922 Year-2025 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura
======================================================
Sonu Kumar S/o Late Upendra Yadav R/o Village- Chitti, Ward No.01, P.S.-
Ghailarh, District- Madhepura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Abhijeet Anand S/o Sri Ajeet Kumar at present BSO Ghailarh Block
Madhepura
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate
Mr. Roop Kishan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
3 01-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Madhepura (Ghailarh O.P.) P.S. Case No. 922 of 2025,
dated 13.09.2025, lodged under Section 7 of the E.C. Act 1955.
3. As per the prosecution, an FIR has been lodged
against the present petitioner with the allegation that, upon
physical inspection of the godown, the rice and wheat were not
found appropriate.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel
further submits that the petitioner is a PDS dealer who has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7951 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
2/3
subsequently authorised to run the shop of another dealer, Dilip
Ram, who has been found involved in black marketing. Counsel
further submits that it has been alleged against the present
petitioner that he was involved in the black marketing of 154.30
quintals of rice and 64.55 quintals of wheat, which is not
correct. During the inspection referred to in the first paragraph,
it was alleged that such a shortage existed, however, there is no
such shortage in the E-POS of the petitioner. Rather, the
corresponding E-POS showing such shortage relates to the
earlier dealer. Under this wrong impression, the Block Rationing
Officer has filed the present case against the petitioner.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
bail of the petitioner and submits that the allegation of black
marketing is specifically mentioned in the FIR.
6. Upon perusal of the records, it transpires to this
Court that, vide its order dated 17.02.2026, no coercive action
was granted in favour of the petitioner, and Opposite Party No.
2 was directed to appear physically on the next appointed date.
Opposite Party No. 2 appeared physically, however, on that
date, the case could not be taken up.
7. As such, in the present facts and circumstances of
this case, and particularly considering that the operative part of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7951 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
3/3
the FIR is in contradiction with the first paragraph of the FIR
itself, let the above named petitioner be released on anticipatory
bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the Trial Court
within a period of 4 weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond
of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) as mentioned in
Section 2(1)(d) of the BNSS, 2023 to the satisfaction of C.J.M.,
Madhepura, in connection with Madhepura (Ghailarh O.P.) P.S.
Case No. 922 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down
U/s 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
U
Checking your session…