Vipin Kumar Singh @ Vipin Singh v. The State of Bihar
CR. MISC./42887/2025 · 2025-08-08
Rajesh Kumar Verma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 54250 (PAT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 54250 (PAT) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42887 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2025 Thana- PURNAHYA District- Sheohar ====================================================== Vipin Kumar Singh @ Vipin Singh S/O Shankar Prasad Singh R/O Village- Adauri, Post Office- Adauri, Police Station- Purnahiya, District- Sheohar. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjaya Nath Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Kumar Rajdeep, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 3 08-08-2025 Heard Mr. Dhananjaya Nath Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 28.04.2025 in connection with Purnahiya P.S. Case No. 01 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 04.01.2025 for the offences punishable under Section 7 of the E.C. Act
3. According to prosecution case, the petitioner is said to have defalcated about 390.26 quintal grains which was supplied to his shop for public distribution. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the petitioner is a PDS dealer and an inspection was made on 20.12.2024 and on verification of the offline register maintained at the shop relating to FPS ID, it
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42887 of 2025(3) dt.08-08-2025 2/3 transpired that 321.84 quintal rice and 68.42 quintal wheat, which comes altogether to 390.26 quintal, was falling short in the physical stock found in the warehouse of the petitioner. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and the shortage of the grain is related to corona period wherein the total lockdown was imposed and the petitioner was directed to distribute the grains without using POS machine. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner on 30.04.2025 under Section 7 of the E.C. Act, 1955 in the Court of S.D.J.M., Sheohar and the petitioner is in custody since 28.04.2025. 5.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is the main accused in the present case and apart from that the petitioner carries three more cases other than the present one but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph 3 of the bail petition that the petitioner is on bail in the pending matters. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Sheohar
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42887 of 2025(3) dt.08-08-2025 3/3 in connection with Purnahiya P.S. Case No. 01 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification. priyanka/- (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) U T