Harishankar Prasad vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 3399 Patna

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37229 of 2020
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-210 Year-2020 Thana- MAJHAULIA District- West Champaran
======================================================

Harishankar Prasad, aged about 76 years, Gender-Male, Son of Late Banti Prasad, Resident of Village- Paras Pakari, P.S.- Majhaulia, Distt- West Champaran.

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

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satyavrat Verma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 16-07-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Satyavrat Verma, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, learned Additional

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

State.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Majhaulia PS Case No. 210 of 2020 dated 19.04.2020, instituted

under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that upon

enquiry at the behest of the District Magistrate, West

Champaran with regard to there being irregularities in the

distribution of ration to the beneficiaries from the Public

Distribution System (PDS) shop of the petitioner, it was found Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37229 of 2020 dt.16-07-2021

that there was deficit of 1.5 quintals of rice and excess of 1.98

quintals of wheat in the stock and, thus, it has been stated that

the complaint that less amount of grain was being supplied and

more was being charged for, was proved.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

entire exercise is a result of conspiracy against the petitioner by

some vested interest for getting the PDS dealership in their

favour. It was submitted that the father of the petitioner was the

original license-holder who got the same in the year 1955 and

thereafter, upon the death of his father in the year 1984, the

petitioner has been running the shop without any complain from

any quarter. It was submitted that even in the FIR, only a vague

statement has been made that there was less foodgrains given to

the beneficiaries for which they were being charged more than

what was given, but there has been no evidence collected to

show that how much foodgrains was collected or there was any

weighing done of the materials which are said to have been less

in quantity and further with regard to what amount had been

charged. It was submitted that the mala fide of the whole

exercise would be clear from the fact that the Block

Development Officer, Majhaulia, who is one of the signatories

on the present FIR has himself lodged an FIR with regard to the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37229 of 2020 dt.16-07-2021

incident on the day of inspection i.e., 19.04.2020 at the PDS

shop of the petitioner, where he has taken the name of three

persons and other unknown persons, wherein it has been stated

that no complaint was made by the beneficiaries while the Block

Development Officer, Majhaulia was making inspection of the

shop of the petitioner where the said accused had tried to create

obstruction by instigating the crowd and calling their supporters

due to which the Block Development Officer, Majhaulia was

detained for some time and had to be rescued by the police.

Thus, learned counsel submitted that on the one hand, the Block

Development Officer, Majhaulia during inspection had found

that the beneficiaries had stated that they had no complaint and

were getting the provision as per the entitlement and certain

elements had tried to instigate them to speak otherwise, read

with the present FIR in which only statement of witnesses have

been stated, but nothing supported by way of any evidence,

relating to lesser amount of foodgrains or any money recovered

from the petitioner's shop to indicate that the same was for an

amount which was more than what was actually given to the

beneficiaries, clearly renders the case without any basis for any

further prosecution and would clearly be an exercise in futility.

However, learned counsel submitted that for the purposes of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37229 of 2020 dt.16-07-2021

present petition, he would not submit with regard to whether the

FIR needs to be interfered with. Learned counsel submitted that

the petitioner is an old man aged about 76 years and further that

he has no other criminal antecedent.

6. Learned APP submitted that some of the

beneficiaries have stated that they had got less grain and were

charged more. However, it was not disputed that for an incident

of the same day, an FIR has been lodged by the Block

Development Officer, Majhaulia, who is also one of the

signatories on the present FIR, and during his enquiry, the

beneficiaries had stated that they had no complain and were

getting foodgrains as per their entitlement.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of

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

the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within

six weeks from today, the petitioner be released on bail upon

furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand)

with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of

the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah

in Majhaulia PS Case No. 210 of 2020, subject to the conditions

laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 and further (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37229 of 2020 dt.16-07-2021

relative of the petitioner, (ii) that the petitioner and the bailors

shall execute bond and give undertaking with regard to the

petitioner not acting in contravention of any law, and (iii) that

the petitioner shall cooperate with the Court and

police/prosecution. Any violation of the terms and conditions of

the bonds or the undertaking or non-cooperation shall lead to

cancellation of his bail bonds.

8. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any

violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioner, to

the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate

action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner.

                     9.    The     petition       stands    disposed      off     in   the

           aforementioned terms.


                                              (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)


Anjani/-
AFR/NAFR
U
T