Munshi Prasad vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 329 Patna

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28076 of 2020
       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-92 Year-2020 Thana- BARHARIA District- Siwan
 ======================================================

Munshi Prasad, aged about 56 years Male, son of late Balchand Yadav, resident of village - Ranipur, P.S.- Barhariya, District - Siwan ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 25-01-2021

Heard Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the

State.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Barhariya PS Case No.92 of 2020 dated 17.03.2020, instituted

under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the food

grains given to him for distribution through his PDS shop, were

taken away and kept at another place from where it was

recovered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the allegation made against the petitioner is false. It was

submitted that on the fateful night, there was heavy rain and the

petitioner, in order to save the grains, had kept it at another Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28076 of 2020 dt.25-01-2021

place. It was further submitted that the witnesses have not stated

with regard to the amount of food grains kept in the sacks.

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has no criminal

antecedent.

5. Learned APP submitted that the food grains which

were given to the petitioner for distribution, upon verification

from his shop were found to be less by huge amount and the

same was also recovered from another place. It was submitted

that the petitioner was at the shop at the time of inspection and

on some pretext went away and never came back. Learned

counsel submitted that the plea that due to rainfall the food

grains were shifted is falsified for the simple reason that had it

been the case, then all the food grains must have been

transferred and not only a part of the same and there were other

food grains in sufficient quantity in the shop.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of

the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the

Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) J. Alam/-

AFR/NAFR U T