Binod Kumar Saw @ Binod Saw vs. The State Of Bihar
Facts
The petitioner, Binod Kumar Saw, apprehends arrest in connection with Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 350 of 2021, registered for offences under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The prosecution alleges that a warehouse belonging to the petitioner and another individual was raided, leading to the recovery of 245 quintals of subsidized wheat, 205 quintals of Arwa rice, and 55 empty jute sacks of the State Food Corporation. The petitioner claims to have a history of five previous cases but asserts his false implication in the present matter. He further contends that he is not a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealer and that the seized articles are not government-controlled items, as he deals in the free sale of food grains and possesses a registered GST number.
Held
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The reasoning appears to be based on the petitioner's submissions that he is not a PDS dealer, the seized articles are not government-controlled items, and he deals in the free sale of food grains with a registered GST number. While the Court acknowledged the petitioner's prior cases, it did not delve into a detailed analysis of the merits of the allegations concerning the Essential Commodities Act. The operative direction was to release the petitioner on bail upon his arrest or surrender within six weeks, subject to furnishing bail bonds and sureties, and adhering to the conditions stipulated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner has made out a case for the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the allegations of recovery of subsidized food grains and the petitioner's alleged involvement in their diversion. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argues that he has been falsely implicated and that the seized items are not government-controlled goods, as he deals in the free sale of food grains and has a registered GST number. He also points to his antecedent of five previous cases, suggesting a pattern of false implication. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
Sections Cited
Section 7, Section 438
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER 2 09-11-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
The informant alleges that the warehouse of the petitioner and Santosh Saw was raided which was situated in the house of one Shri Shiv Shankar Kumar Sharma, further on search of the said warehouse 245 quintals of subsidized wheat along
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.