Dinanath Sah @ Ghantu Sah vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Dinanath Sah @ Ghantu Sah, is seeking anticipatory bail in Dhoraiya P.S. Case No. 288 of 2017, registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The case involves the seizure of a truck carrying 450 bags of rice, alleged to be government subsidized. The petitioner, owner of a rice mill, booked the consignment which was seized on December 30, 2017, for delivery to Jai Mata Gayatri Traders, Banka, who possessed a valid GST number. The petitioner contends he is not a PDS dealer and the FIR does not definitively establish the rice as subsidized or originating from PDS dealers or BSFC godowns. The investigation is ongoing, and the petitioner's anticipatory bail application was previously rejected by the lower court.
Held
The Court allowed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail. The reasoning was based on several factors: the petitioner was not named in the FIR; he is a rice miller who supplied rice through a transporter to a purchaser/consignee who had a valid GST number, as evidenced by Annexure P/2 series; it was not certain in the FIR that the seized rice was government subsidized rice; and the petitioner is not a PDS dealer. The Court found these points sufficient to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail. The operative direction was to release the petitioner on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Banka, within four weeks of his arrest or surrender, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482 (2) of the B.N.S.S.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with Dhoraiya P.S. Case No. 288 of 2017, registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, considering the allegations and the stage of investigation? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he is not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated solely because he is the owner of the rice mill and booked the consignment. He emphasized that the consignment was destined for a consignee with a valid GST number and that he is not a PDS dealer. Furthermore, the petitioner highlighted that the investigation is still pending and the prosecution has not yet concluded that the seized rice is indeed government subsidized or diverted from PDS dealers or BSFC godowns. The bill for supply, showing a valid GST number, was produced as evidence. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State (Opposite Party/s) regarding the petitioner's entitlement to anticipatory bail.
Sections Cited
Section 7
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER 2 10-09-2025 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Dhoraiya P.S. Case No. 288 of 2017, registered for the offences punishable under Section 7 of E.C. Act.
The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report is that, on 30.12.2017 at about 10:00 P.M., during patrolling, the police intercepted a truck loaded with 450 bags of rice and it has been alleged in the FIR that prima facie rice appear to be government subsidized rice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR and has falsely been implicated in this case merely because he is the owner of the rice mill and booked the consignment of rice on 27.11.2017 and the same was seized on 30.12.2017 which was to be delivered to 2/3 the consignee, namely, Jai Mata Gayatri Traders, Banka having valid GST number. The bill for supplying the rice has been annexed at Annexure P/2 series to this petition. Petitioner is not the PDS dealer and the investigation in this case is still pending and the police has not arrived at the conclusion that the subsidized were are taken out from the PDS dealer and/or BSFC godown. The investigation of this case is still pending as would be evident from the impugned order where the police started search of the petitioner, apprehending his arrest, the petitioner filed the anticipatory bail application before the Court below and the same has been rejected.
Having regard to the submissions made by the parties taking into consideration the fact that petitioner is a rice miller and supplied the rice through transporter in favour of purchaser/consignee as would be evident from Annexure P/2 series and in the FIR it is not certain that seized rice is part of the Government subsidized rice and the petitioner is not named in the FIR, I am inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.
This application is, accordingly, allowed.
Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the Court below within four weeks, be 3/3 released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Banka, in connection with Dhoraiya P.S. Case No. 288 of 2017, subject to the condition laid down under Section 482 (2) of the B.N.S.S.
Siwani/- (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) U T
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.