Lalu Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 61 of 2026, dated 24.01.2026, instituted for the offences punishable under Section 287 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

The prosecution case, in short, is that acting on secret information, the police conducted raids at different places and recovered a large quantity of petrol/diesel-like substance stored in drums. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was involved in the unlawful storage and sale of 2/4 adulterated/fake petrol and diesel by keeping stock of the same in a warehouse situated at the old Kanti factory and supplying it to different places.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that no incriminating article was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and his implication is based merely on the statement of a co-accused and certain villagers whose names have not been disclosed in the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a businessman running Aditya Tyre Enterprises, where industrial oil is used for servicing, maintenance and wheel alignment of vehicles. Learned counsel submits that, so far as the recovery of 2,600 litres of petrol/diesel-like substance from the old warehouse situated at Sugawan Tal (Old Kanti Factory), contained in 13 blue plastic drums, each having a capacity of 200 litres, along with 50 empty blue plastic drums of the same capacity and one Nikon make electronic weighing machine, as described in the seizure list, is concerned, the petitioner is the bona fide purchaser of the said articles. It is submitted that, under a valid GST invoice dated 16.01.2026, the petitioner had purchased 10,360 kilograms of industrial oil from Aman Petro 3/4 Chemicals, Patna, and the purchase receipt has been brought on record as Annexure P/3 to the bail petition. It is further submitted that the seized substance has not been subjected to any examination by an expert or forensic laboratory and, therefore, there is no material on record to conclusively establish that the seized substance was petrol or diesel. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is on bail in the one other criminal case pending against him.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.

Considering the nature of the allegations, the fact that the petitioner's implication is primarily based on the statement of a co-accused, that no recovery has been made from his conscious possession, that the nature of the seized substance is yet to be confirmed by any expert report and that the custody of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation at this stage, this Court is inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner..

In the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- 4/4 (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, East Champaran, in connection with Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 61 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 8. The application stands allowed.