Bail granted due to incorrect facts in FIR and consideration of the petitioner's clean antecedents.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

2 28-01-2026 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Saur Bazar P.S. Case No. 318 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 .

3. Based upon the written report, the prosecution alleges that on the fateful day, the informant, who is said to be Supply Inspector of Sour Bazar, inspected the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner. However, during physical inspection, it was found that there was no foodgrains available in the godown, though as per the record, 29.99 quintals of wheat and 126.23 quintals of rice should be kept in the godown. On query, the petitioner could not able to produce any proof of availability of foodgrains and it is found that the foodgrains have been used or sold in the blackmarket.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Fair Price Shop Dealer since 1978 and prior to institution of the present case, there had never been any irregularity found or alleged against him. In fact, the shop in question consists of two rooms, out of which one is exclusively used as godown for storage of foodgrains and the another room which is also a godown but primarily used for weighing and distributing the foodgrains in which very meager amount of foodgrains are kept. On the date of inspection, the petitioner had gone for medical advice and the entire inspection was done in his absence. Soon after institution of the FIR, the petitioner has filed an appeal/representation before all the authorities concerned and it is categorically stated that as per e-POS machine, still in the godown of the petitioner there are altogether 173.43 quintals of rice and 41.73 quintal of wheat; hence inspection report is based upon incorrect fact. For the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, the punishment is provided upto seven years and, as such, the petitioner ought to be given the benefit of Section 35(1) of the BNSS. However, the same has not been done; all the more the Supply Inspector was also required to follow the prescription as provided under Section 103 of the BNSS in terms with Section 31 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, the same has also not been done. The petitioner bears fair antecedent.

5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State vehemently opposed the bail application.

6. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates for the respective parties and taking note of the fact that the FIR has been instituted only under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 , besides non compliance of Section 103 of the BNSS and the petitioner is a septuagenarian having fair antecedent and claiming the presence of required food grains as per the e-POS Machine, let the petitioner abovenamed be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/- (twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa in connection with Saur Bazar P.S. Case No. 318 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , with the further condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family members of the petitioner.

(Harish Kumar, J)