Maruti Nandan vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Maruti Nandan, apprehends arrest in connection with Chakai P.S. Case No. 36 of 2021, registered for offences under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 07 of the Essential Commodities Act. The allegation is that 280 packets of subsidized rice were recovered from the petitioner's godown. The petitioner contends he is not a PDS dealer and that there is no evidence to suggest the seized rice was stolen from the Food Corporation of India (FCI), noting the absence of FCI seals on the packets. He also states he is a license holder and GST certificate holder. The petitioner has clean antecedents.

Held

The Court considered the facts and circumstances, including the petitioner's clean antecedents. The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The reasoning appears to be based on the lack of conclusive evidence presented by the prosecution at this stage to establish that the seized rice was indeed stolen property belonging to the FCI, and the petitioner's assertion of being a license and GST certificate holder. The Court directed that upon arrest or surrender within four weeks before the learned court below, the petitioner be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The issue of whether the possession of subsidized rice without proof of theft constitutes an offence under the cited sections was implicitly addressed by granting bail, suggesting the court found the grounds for anticipatory bail to be met.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations of possessing subsidized rice, without evidence of it being stolen from the FCI or lacking FCI seals, warrant prosecution under Sections 420 and 120B of the IPC and Section 07 of the Essential Commodities Act, thereby justifying anticipatory bail for the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he is not a PDS dealer. He contended that the seized rice cannot be considered stolen property as no complaint has been filed by any person or the FCI alleging theft. Furthermore, he pointed out that the packets did not bear any FCI seals, thus lacking definitive proof of their origin from the FCI. He also highlighted his status as a license and GST certificate holder. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State, represented by the learned APP, did not present any specific arguments against the anticipatory bail application in the provided text.