In the Court of ADJ-XI, Madhubani

Regular Bail Petition No.98/2022

Dated:25.02.2022

In the Court of Additional Sessions Judge­XI, Madhubani
Regular Bail Petition No.­98/2022

 Present    : Rashmi

Sib Sundar Bhagat, aged about 48 years, S/o Rambilas Bhagat.
……….Petitioner
Versus

1. State of Bihar through Addl. Public Prosecutor.
 ……..Opposite Party

Bail Petition Under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
For the petitioner/s : Shri Shiv Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For the O.P. State : Shri Virendra Kumar Yadav, APP
O R D E R     
 Dated: 25.02.2022
This bail petition has been filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of
the   petitioner  Sib   Sundar   Bhagat   (who   is   in   custody   since   25.01.2022)  in
connection   with  Basopatti   PS   Case   No.209/2021,   CRI   No.   652/2021  for   the
offence   under   section   7   of   the   E.C.   Act   presently   pending   in   the   court   of
S.D.J.M., Madhubani.
  The prosecution story in brief is that the informant in his letter
no. 145 dated 19.08.2021 has alleged that on the question raised by Hon’ble
MLA, Sri Arun Shankar Prasad, the matter was inquired by the District level
enquiry   team   and   the   accused   persons   were   found   guilty.   In   the   enquiry
report, it is mentioned that purchase and sale of the grains by t trucks are
engaged with handling and transporting agent of S.F.C. is suspicious. Hence,
S.D.O., Jainagar on the basis of the report of enquiry team has directed the
informant to lodge FIR against the petitioner under E.C. Act. Later on, on the
basis   of   this   letter,   FIR   was   registered   and   Basopatti   police   started   the
investigation. Hence, this case. 
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
quiet   innocent   and   has   committed   no   offence   rather   he   has   been   falsely
implicated   in   this   case.   No   occurrence   as   alleged   did   ever   take   place.
Petitioner deals in food grains and has valid registration of G.S.T. and the
petitioner used to purchase food grains from farmers and used to sell it in free
market.   Food   grains   have   been   deleted   from   the   schedule   of   essential

1/3
 In the Court of ADJ-XI, Madhubani
Regular Bail Petition No.98/2022
Dated:25.02.2022

commodities by Government of India vide GSR104E dated 15.02.2022 and
now there is no restriction of sale, purchase, storage and transportation of
food grains and only subsidized grains which are being supplied to PDS dealer
for distribution amongst beneficiary and mid­day meal is under control. On
08.01.2021, Anchal Adhikari, Basopatti­cum­Marketing Officer, Basopatti was
informed by telephone that the grains of PDS is being loaded on a trucks on
Basopatti­Chhatauni main road at village Jhitkohiya and on that information,
S.H.O. basopatti reached that village and found that grains has been loaded
on truck bearing reg. no.  BR01GE1151 and truck no. BR6GC9665 was being
loaded and both the trucks were kept under the watch of local chaukidar and
the   matter   was   reported   to   the   SDO,   Jainagar   and   SDO   Jainagar   got   the
matter enquired and it was found that the grain loaded on trucks are not
subsidised grains and both trucks were released and the grains given to the
petitioner on jimmenama. This fact finds support from the enquiry report of
district   level   enquiry   team.   Hon’ble   MLA,   Sri   Arun   Shankar   Prasad   raised
question   in   Legislative  Assembly,  Patna   and   on  the  basis  of   which   District
Level Enquiry Team was constituted and the team submitted report and on
that basis SDO, Jainagar directed the informant to lodge FIR. As per report of
the District Level Enquiry Team, no case u/s 7 EC Act is made out against the
petitioner. It is no where mentioned in the FIR that what provisions of which
control   order   made   u/s   7   EC   Act   has   been   violated.   There   are   catena   of
decisions of Hon’ble High Court, Patna that registration of FIR under Section
7 EC Act, without stating that what provisions of which control order has been
violated   is   a   nulity   and   unsustainable.   Petitioner   is   not   a   PDS   dealer   and
Hon’ble High Court, Patna reported in PLJR 2019(3) Page 239 PHC has held
that no prosecution could be launched against private person for violation of
provisions of EC Act or  control order. His Lordship of Hon’ble Patna High
Court in a decision reported in PLJR 2018(2) Page 902 PHC has held that
allegation   against   the   petitioner   of   selling   rice   of   Govt.   Scheme   in   black
market   and   the   petitioners   deals   in   free   sale   of   food   grains   and   not   PDS
dealer,   sale   of   rice   not   covered   in   any   control   order.   Petitioner   has   not
violated any provisions of Section 7 EC Act. Local Police under the pressure of
local  politicians  arrested   the  petitioner without  complying   the  provision  of
Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. and also without complying the direction of Hon’ble
Apex Court made in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar. The
petitioner is law abiding citizen and there is no chance of their absconding
and tampering with evidence and he is ready to abide the condition as laid
down u/s 439 Cr.P.C. and he is ready to furnish good and sufficient sureties
for his bail. Lastly, prayer has been made to enlarge the petitioner on bail.   
The learned A.P.P. for the state has opposed the prayer of bail of
the petitioner and submitted that gravity of the offence is severe in nature.

2/3
 In the Court of ADJ-XI, Madhubani
Regular Bail Petition No.98/2022
Dated:25.02.2022

Hence, the petitioner does not deserve bail.
Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for
the State and perused the case diary and record. Other witnesses of the case
diary   have   also   supported   the   case   of   the   prosecution.   Enormously   huge
quantity of food grains has been recovered. This type of offence is not only
against an individual but against society at large. 
Having   regard   these   facts   alongwith   materials   on   record   in
support thereof, I do not find it judicious to enlarge the petitioner on bail and
in result, the same stands rejected.
 Dictated
Sd/­

Additional Sessions Judge­XI, 
   Madhubani 
Memo No.______________Dated:______________
Copy forwarded to the court of S.D.J.M., Madhubani, for information and needful.

           Additional Sessions Judge­XI,
  Madhubani 

3/3