Ramesh Thakur vs State Of Bihar

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

Heard Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter

referred to as the ‘APP’) for the State.

The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Mahua PS Case No. 174 of 2020 dated 29.03.2020, instituted under Sections COVID-19 and 7

of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

The petitioner, who is a PDS dealer is that he had committed various irregularities and also not distributed the foodgrains for the month of March,

2020.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to COVID-19 pandemic, special procedure was being followed and the petitioner received

food grains on 17.03.2020 and started distributing on 19.03.2020 and finished on 26.03.2020, for March, 2020 and attached to the shop, there are 137

beneficiaries. It was submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the villagers without having committed any offence.

Learned APP submitted that the allegation against the petitioner, inter alia, is that on the date of inspection on 28.03.2020, his shop was found

closed, in front of the shop there was no board with regard to the stock and further that he had not prepared any list or record and was also not

present. It was submitted that the further allegation is that the on-line distribution report dated 28.03.2020 shows that 87.26% of food grains were

distributed, but many beneficiaries had informed that they had not received their ration. It was further submitted that no member of the family of the

petitioner showed the stock to the officials who had gone to inspect. Thus, learned counsel submitted that when the public was facing hardship due to

COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner has indulged in black marketeering, as the beneficiaries had complained that they had not received their ration,

which is also reflected from the report of the officers.

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.

Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.