Sanoj Chaudhary @ Sanoj Kumar Chaudhary @ Sanoj Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar
Held
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The reasoning appears to be based on the petitioner's submission that he is a registered firm paying GST, has fulfilled his contractual obligations, and that the bags found were not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing as they are commonly available. The Court also noted the petitioner's assertion that Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is not applicable. The operative direction was to release the petitioner on bail upon arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within six weeks, subject to furnishing bail bonds and sureties as per Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the grant of bail suggests a prima facie view that the grounds for custodial interrogation might not be strong at this stage.
Facts
The petitioner, Sanoj Chaudhary, apprehends arrest in connection with Bounsi P.S. Case No. 78 of 2020, registered for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The prosecution alleges that during a raid on the petitioner's rice mill godown, 386 packets of rice bearing the seal of the State Food Corporation were found. The petitioner's brother opened the mill but not the personal godown. The petitioner, contacted by phone, stated his mill was not registered with the Bihar State Food Corporation for the current year. The petitioner claims innocence, stating he has been running Maa Bhagwati Rice Mill since 2013, is a registered firm, and has been paying GST. He asserts he has delivered rice as per agreements and that bags of the Bihar State Food Corporation are readily available in the market.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner's arrest is warranted under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, considering the allegations of possessing rice packets with the State Food Corporation seal and the petitioner's defense that such bags are common and he has fulfilled his contractual obligations. Contentions: Petitioner: Argues innocence, stating the allegations are false and concocted. He claims to be a registered firm paying GST, evidenced by GSTR-3B returns for specific periods. He asserts that all contractual obligations for rice delivery have been met and that the use of BSFC/FCI/Corporation bags is permissible as they are available in the general market. He further contends that Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is not applicable. State: Opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
Sections Cited
Section 438(2), Section 7
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER 3 26-11-2020 Heard the parties through the virtual court proceeding.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Bounsi P.S. Case No. 78 of 2020 (G.R. No.103 of 2020) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
As per prosecution case, on the secret information and direction of S.D.O., the informant Umakant Sharma w
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.