Patna High Court

Rajesh Kumar DasversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 15 January 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY

Holding

The court granted bail to the petitioner.

Summary

The Patna High Court considered an application for bail filed by Rajesh Kumar Das, who was arrested under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for allegedly dealing in prohibited food grains. The prosecution alleged that his shop, though closed at the time of inspection, was a hub for storing large quantities of rice and wheat, and that he was a PD S dealer. The petitioner contended that the shop had been closed, no grain supplies had been received since 2019, and he had been falsely implicated, supporting his claim with letters and the fact that he had been in judicial custody since 16 October 2025. The State opposed bail, citing a prior criminal case against the petitioner. After hearing both sides, the court found the circumstances warranted bail and ordered the petitioner to be released on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to the satisfaction of the Sub‑Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act considering the alleged offense and his criminal antecedent.

Legislation cited

Essential Commodities Act — s. 7

Subjects

bail
Essential Commodities Act
Section 7
criminal antecedent
judicial custody
PD S dealer
food grain
Patna High Court
Khagaria

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89830 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-241 Year-2025 Thana- GOGRI District- Khagaria
                 ======================================================
                 Rajesh Kumar Das S/O Late Naresh Das Resident of Village- Fatehpur Ward
                 No. 12, P.S.- Gogri, District- Khagaria
                                                                          ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                   ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Amar Kumar Singh, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER
2   15-01-2026                    Heard Mr. Amar Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

                   petitioner and Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, learned APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with

                   Gogari P.S. Case No. 241 of 2025 and registered for the offence

                   punishable under Section 7 of the E.C. Act.

                                3. The case of the prosecution in short is that the

                   petitioner is a P.D.S. dealer. His shop was inspected, and at the

                   time of inspection, the shop was closed. The wife of the petitioner

                   disclosed that for the last two years they have not received any

                   food grains. She also told the informant to take away the e-POS

                   machine. As per the informant, there should be 115.68 quintals of

                   rice and 76.75 quintals of wheat in the shop of the petitioner.

                                4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

                   has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no

                   offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89830 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
                                                       2/2




                     counsel for the petitioner submits that from the perusal of the FIR,

                     it is clear that at the time of inspection, the shop was closed. He

                     further submits that since 2019, they have not been receiving a

                     supply of the food grains and that they have written various

                     letters, which are annexed. He also submits that as they have not

                     received the supply of food grains, there is no question of any

                     food grain at their establishment. Moreover, the petitioner is

                     languishing in judicial custody since 16.10.2025.

                                  5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP

                     for the State and submits that the petitioner is having criminal

                     antecedent of one case.

                                  6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

                     considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is

                     inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.          The above named

                     petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail

                     bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of

                     the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-

                     Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria in connection with

                     Gogari P.S. Case No. 241 of 2025.



                                                    (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…