Md. Shahabuddin Ansari @ Shahabuddin Ansari vs State Of Bihar

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

Heard Mr. Vikram Deo Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Atul Chandra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred

to as the ‘APP’) for the State.

The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Shahkund (Sajour) PS Case No. 114 of 2020 dated 06.06.2020, instituted under Section 7 of the

Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

The allegation against the petitioner is that two quintals of rice were caught from one Ramdhari Sao and he disclosed that he had taken it from the

petitioner’s PDS shop.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation is absolutely false and fabricated and he has been framed. It was submitted that first

and foremost, no enquiry was made, much less any show cause given to the petitioner to explain as to whether the rice was from his shop. It was

submitted that in the FIR itself, it was written that for the month of May, 2020, 25.75 quintals of food grains was allotted and provided to the shop of

the petitioner and when the incident occurred, the Block Supply Officer, who is also the informant of the case, on the same day, has transferred the

entire 25.75 quintals of food grains to another PDS shop for the beneficiaries to take the materials from that place. It was submitted that the same

Officer has lodged FIR against the petitioner on the one hand and on the other hand, on the same day, he has found the entire amount of food grains in

the shop of the petitioner, which has now been given to another person. Learned counsel submitted that this is a clear case of highhandedness where

the petitioner in spite of being innocent, his license has been suspended and his beneficiaries have been transferred and attached to another PDS

dealer. It was submitted that the petitioner is running the PDS shop since long without any complaint in the past and is aged about 65 years and has no

criminal antecedent.

Learned APP fairly submitted that in view of the fact that the Block Supply Officer, who is the informant, has lodged the FIR in which it is alleged

that the person from whom two quintals of rice were seized had taken the name of the shop of petitioner from where he had got it, whereas, on the

same day the food grains, which were transferred from the shop of the petitioner by the informant himself, actually amounted to 25.75 quintals and

there was no shortage of food grains.

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 ACJM-2, Bhagalpur, in Shahkund (Sajour) PS Case No. 114 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 relative of the petitioner, (ii) that the petitioner shall cooperate with the Court and the police/prosecution. Failure to cooperate shall lead to

cancellation of his bail bonds.

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.

The application stands disposed off in the aforementioned terms.