Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1233 (PAT)

Sanjay Kumar v. The State of Bihar

CR. MISC./7165/2026 · 2026-04-01

Ramesh Chand Malviya

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7165 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-216 Year-2025 Thana- DARIGAON District- Rohtas ====================================================== Sanjay Kumar, aged about 46 years, Gender-Male, Son of Jagdish Prasad, Resident of village- Alamganj, Shobhaganj, P.S.- Sasaram Town, District- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Suman Kumari Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 3 01-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and perused the case diary. 2. The petitioner is in custody in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 338, 336(3), 340(2), 274, 275, 318(2)(3) and 318(4) of the BNS and Sections 56, 51 and 52 of the F.S of the Standard Act, 2006. 3. As per allegation in the FIR, the informant was conducted a raiding team and reached the illegal godown of the petitioner’ shop, namely, Durga Salt Supplier situated at Gola Bazar and found several Nirma company salt 30 packets, Nirma company 190 packets, Tata company salt 125 packets, Tata salt vacuum evaporated iodised 400 vacant wrapper, Tata salt vacant 39 packets, Nirma Shudh Salt vacuum evaporated vacant 126 packets, Nirma company 220 packets, Nirma company 21 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7165 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026 2/3 packets, Bandhan rock salt sendha namak company 650 packets, Sankhs rock salt 118 packets, Sankhs Captain Cook iodised sea salt 230 packets, Shukti rock salt 230 packets, Automatia film sealing machine moder FR 900 power 0.65 KW, source 220 V/50HZ, Speed 0-12 /min machine and Revo since 1942 model DA BAG closer swarup mechanical works machine was recovered from the godown of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He next submits that petitioner is a business man and he has got clean antecedent as stated in para-3 of the petition and he is in custody since 03.12.2025. He next submits that petitioner was neither arrest at the spot nor any incriminating articles have been recovered form the possession of the petitioner. He next submits that from perusal of the FIR, the petitioner has got a shop in the name and style of Durga Salt Supplier at Gola Bazar, Sasaram but no Salt of Tata Company were recovered form the shop of the petitioner which itself goes to show that the petitioner was not going to sale the Salt of Tata Company from his shop as stated in para-10 of the petition. 5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner is trading of illegal name of Tata Company Salt and transported to Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7165 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026 3/3 his shop which is very serious matter in this case. 6. On perusal of the first informant report, case diary and impugned order dated 03.01.2026, it appears that non- iodised salt consumption has very serious health consumption including congenital defects in babies, pregnant women and also necessary for well being of ordinary people and so the sale has been forbidden by regulation under FSS Act and the huge recovery of common salt, wrappers, sealing machine, closing machine etc indicate the large scale and magnitude of the illegal operation allegedly being run by the petitioner posing serious health threat to public at large including still birth, physical and mental disorder etc to ordinary people and several witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution, so I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. 8. However, petitioner is directed to renew his prayer for bail before the learned trial Court after completion of eight months of custody. Brajesh Kumar/- (Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) U T