Allowed

Suman Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC8 Aug 2019CR. MISC./12518/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner who was apprehending arrest in a bribery/corruption case involving rice supply. The court noted the petitioner supplied more rice than the paddy received, leading to the grant of bail.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties if arrested within four weeks.

Suman Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Anr. — Corruption | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12518 of 2019

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-461 Year-2018 Thana- HILSA District- Nalanda

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Suman Kumar Son of Raj Kishore Prasad Resident of Village- Chamarbigha, P.S.- Hilsa, District - Nalanda, Proprietor of Mahadev Rice Mill.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

The Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Patna. Patna.

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sada Nand Roy, Advocate Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP For the BSFC : Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶11

8 08-08-2019

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶13

APP representing the State.

¶14

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Hilsa P.S. Case No. 461 of 2018, registered under Sections 420/409/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

The allegation against the petitioner, as per FIR lodged by the Block Co-operative Extension Officer, Hilsa, Nalanda, is that the Chairman of the PACS had supplied 617 quintals of Paddy to Mahadev Rice Mill for milling, which is equivalent to 448.90 qunitals of CMR, out of which only 270.00 qunitals of CMR was supplied to the PACS Chairman by the petitioner and rest of 178.98 qunitals of CMR was

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12518 of 2019(8) dt.08-08-2019 2/3

¶17

misappropriated by the petitioners.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation made in the FIR is not correct. He further submits that from perusal of para 7 and 8 of the bail application, it would be evident that the petitioner as miller had supplied 270 qunitals rice (CMR) to the Chairman of the concerned PACS and against that the petitioner was required to supply 403 qunitals of paddy but only 293 quintals of paddy was supplied, which is less than 110 qunitals than the original CMR. He further submits that the petitioner has received only 293 quintals of paddy and he has already supplied 270 qunitals of CMR and therefore the petitioner has not misappropriated the rice and on the contrary the petitioner has supplied more rice than the paddy supplied to him.

¶19

On the other hand, learned counsel for the BSFC, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner, he submits that BFSC has received less quantity of the rice than required to be supplied by the PACS. It appears that despite service of notice, O.P. No.3, Block Co-operative Extension Officer, Hilsa has not appeared before this Court.

¶20

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that petitioner has supplied

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12518 of 2019(8) dt.08-08-2019 3/3

¶22

more rice than the paddy supplied to him, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶23

This application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶24

Let the petitioner, abovenamed, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from today, be released on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa (Nalanda) in connection with Hilsa P.S. Case No. 461 of 2018; subject to condition as laid down hereinabove and under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶25

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)

¶26

S.Katyayan/-

¶27

U T

Suman Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munna Tiwari @ Uday Pratap Tiwari, Vs The State of Bihar

Amit Kumar @ Sonu Vs the State of Bihar

Kartik Mushar @Katrik Mushar Vs The State of Bihar

Nayak Manjhi Vs The State of Bihar

Ravi Bhushan Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Harish Chandra Mahto Vs The State of Bihar