Premji @ Premchand Prasad vs State Of Bihar

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

Heard Mr. N K Agrawal, learned senior counsel along with Ms. Preety Kunwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Damodar Prasad

Tiwary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the ‘APP’) for the State.

The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Bihar PS Case No. 316 of 2020 dated 10.05.2020, instituted under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468,

471, 188, 269, 276, 271/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 51-B, 57 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

The allegation against the petitioner is that out of the food-grains which were seized by the police from a pickup van, 15 bags of wheat and 5 bags

of rice were loaded from his shop and it was suspected that the food-grains were of public distribution scheme and were being taken for black

marketing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the FIR itself the only allegation is that 15 bags of wheat and 5 bags of rice were loaded

from his shop, that too, in plastic bags without any seal or identification of the public distribution scheme. It was submitted that the petitioner is a petty

dealer in free sale food-grains and does not have any licence, either under the public distribution scheme or for any subsidized sale of food-grains from

the government. It was submitted that the sale of food-grains has been made free which would be clear from GSR 104 (E) dated 15.02.2002 for

Removal of (Licensing Requirements, Stock Limits and Movement Restrictions) on Specified Foodstuffs Order, 2002, published in the gazette of India

dated 15.02.2002 (copy annexed as Annexure-2), which stipulates that with the coming into effect of the Order, any dealer may freely buy, stock, sell,

transport, distribute, dispose, acquire, use or consume any quantity of wheat paddy/rice, coarse grains, sugar, edible oilseeds and edible oils and shall

not require a permit or license therefor under any order issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Thus, it was contended that even if it is

assumed that the food-grains were loaded from the shop of the petitioner, there being nothing to indicate that the said food-grains were for any

government scheme and the aforesaid Control Order not requiring any permission either to sell or to transport, as far as the petitioner is concerned, no

offence, much less, any criminal offence can be attributed to the petitioner. It was submitted that the petitioner has a good reputation and has no other

criminal antecedent.

Learned APP submitted that as per the statement of the driver of the pickup van which was seized, from the petitioner's shop the said food-grains

were loaded and also some food-grains from the house of a PDS dealer. However, it was not controverted that the food-grains which were loaded

from the shop of the petitioner were in plastic bags without any mark of any government department or scheme and further, that the food-grains

loaded from the petitioner’s shop were separate from those loaded from the house of a PDS dealer.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in view of the above referred

Control Order which does not place any restriction on any dealer to deal in food-grains including its storage and transportation, as also there being no

allegation that the food-grains bore any sign or mark that they were meant for any government scheme and also the petitioner having no other criminal

antecedent, the Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail.

Accordingly, 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 Sub Divisional

Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda, in Bihar PS Case No. 316 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 and the bailors shall execute bond

with regard to good behaviour of the petitioner, and (iii) that the petitioner shall also give an undertaking to the Court that he shall not indulge in any

illegal/criminal activity, act in violation of any law/statutory provisions, tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses. Any violation of the terms

and conditions of the bonds or the undertaking shall lead to cancellation of his bail bonds. The petitioner shall cooperate in the case and be present

before the Court on each and every date. Failure to cooperate or being absent on two consecutive dates, without sufficient cause, shall also 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 petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.