Parmanand Prasad vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. While acknowledging the State's contention regarding the allegation of black marketing of subsidized food grains and the recovery of rice in bags marked with the State of Punjab, the Court noted the absence of specific restrictions on rice concerning pilferage, movement control, storage limits, license requirements, stock register maintenance, cash memo issuance, or display of stock and price. The Court reasoned that in the absence of such explicit controls and in light of the petitioner's argument that the bag markings do not inherently prove the rice to be subsidized or government property, the petitioner should be released on bail. The ratio decidendi is that mere suspicion based on bag markings, without evidence of specific regulatory violations concerning rice, is insufficient to deny pre-arrest bail in such cases. The operative direction was to release the petitioner on bail upon furnishing bail bonds.

Facts

The petitioner, Parmanand Prasad, proprietor of M/s Laxmi Bhandar, sought pre-arrest bail in Laheri P.S. Case No. 199 of 2018. The case was registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner's firm deals in wheat and rice and is GST registered. Rice was seized from the petitioner's firm, purchased on 07.07.2018 from M/s Sunny Rice Mill. Empty bags were purchased on 06.07.2018 from M/s Patel Agri Industries Pvt. Ltd. after payment of GST. The seizure was based on the suspicion that the gunny bags bore the mark of the State of Punjab, leading to an allegation of black marketing of subsidized food grains.

Key Issues

1. Whether the presence of the mark of the State of Punjab on gunny bags, from which rice was seized, is sufficient to presume that the rice was subsidized or belonged to a government scheme, thereby constituting an offence under the Essential Commodities Act and the Indian Penal Code? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the mere presence of the State of Punjab's mark on the gunny bags does not constitute an offence. He contended that there are no restrictions on the reuse of bags marked by the FCI or any State Government, and therefore, no presumption against the petitioner can be raised solely on this basis. The petitioner also highlighted that his firm is GST registered and that the bags were purchased after payment of GST. Revenue/State's Argument: The State opposed the pre-arrest bail application, submitting that there is an allegation that the petitioner was involved in the black marketing of subsidized food grains, and a large quantity of rice was recovered from his firm in bags marked with the State of Punjab's insignia.