Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Binod Kumar Saw @ Binod Saw, apprehended arrest in connection with a criminal case registered for an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

According to the informant, a warehouse allegedly belonging to the petitioner and Santosh Saw was raided. The warehouse was stated to be situated in the house of one Shri Shiv Shankar Kumar Sharma.

During the search of the warehouse, the authorities allegedly recovered:

  • 245 quintals of subsidized wheat;
  • 205 quintals of Arwa rice; and
  • 55 empty jute sacks of the State Food Corporation.

On the basis of the alleged recovery, criminal proceedings were initiated, leading the petitioner to approach the Patna High Court seeking anticipatory bail.

Issues Involved

The principal issues before the Court were:

  1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
  2. Whether the petitioner’s contention that he was not a P.D.S. dealer and was engaged in the free sale of food grains with a registered GST number was relevant for consideration of his anticipatory bail plea.
  3. Whether the alleged recovery of subsidized wheat, Arwa rice and empty State Food Corporation jute sacks justified denial of anticipatory bail in the facts and circumstances placed before the Court.
  4. Whether anticipatory bail could be granted despite the petitioner having antecedents of five cases.

Petitioner’s Arguments

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that:

  • The petitioner had been falsely implicated in the present case.
  • It was acknowledged before the Court that the petitioner had antecedents of five cases.
  • The petitioner was not a Public Distribution System (P.D.S.) dealer.
  • The alleged seized articles were stated to be not government-controlled items.
  • The petitioner was engaged in the free sale of food grains.
  • The petitioner possessed a registered GST number, as stated to be evident from Annexure-3.

On the basis of these submissions, the petitioner sought protection from arrest through grant of anticipatory bail.

Respondent’s Arguments

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail.

The order does not record any further detailed independent submissions or specific counter-arguments advanced on behalf of the State beyond opposition to the anticipatory bail prayer.

Court Order / Findings

The Patna High Court considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

The Court directed that, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within six weeks from the date of the order, the petitioner, Binod Kumar Saw @ Binod Saw, be released on anticipatory bail subject to the following terms:

  • The petitioner shall furnish bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand);
  • The petitioner shall provide two sureties of the like amount each;
  • The bail bonds shall be furnished to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending or the successor court;
  • The bail relates to Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 350 of 2021;
  • The release shall remain subject to the conditions prescribed under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; and
  • One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his father, Batoran Saw @ Bateshwar Shah.

Accordingly, the High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the specified terms and conditions.

Important Clarification

This order is significant from a bail perspective because the petitioner was facing allegations under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act arising from the alleged recovery of a substantial quantity of food grains and empty State Food Corporation sacks.

However, the order should be understood with the following important clarifications:

  1. The High Court granted anticipatory bail; it did not acquit the petitioner.
  2. The Court did not finally determine ownership, source or lawful character of the allegedly seized food grains.
  3. The Court did not record a final finding that the seized wheat or rice was privately owned or lawfully traded stock.
  4. The contention that the petitioner was not a P.D.S. dealer and that the seized articles were not government-controlled items was recorded as the petitioner’s submission.
  5. The contention regarding free sale of food grains and possession of a registered GST number was also part of the petitioner’s argument and should not be treated as an independent final factual adjudication by the Court.
  6. The petitioner’s antecedents of five cases were expressly disclosed in the submissions recorded in the order, yet the Court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions.
  7. The bail protection was conditional upon arrest or surrender before the trial court within six weeks from the date of the order.
  8. The order required one of the bailors to be the petitioner’s father, Batoran Saw @ Bateshwar Shah.

Sections Involved

Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955

The criminal case against the petitioner was registered for an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. This provision broadly concerns penalties for contravention of orders made under Section 3 of the Act.

Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

The anticipatory bail granted by the High Court was expressly made subject to the conditions contemplated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

Link to Download the Order https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783330370_1125compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.