Ram Babu Prasad vs The State Of Bihar and Ors
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40984 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2015 Thana- CHHAURADANO District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Ram Babu Prasad, Son of Late Mangal Prasad, R/o village- Ekdari,
Chhauradano, P.S.- Chhauradano, District- East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation
Ltd. Patna.
3. The District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.
Motihari.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
For the B.S.F.C. : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Utkarsha Utpal, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajballabh Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 28-08-2026
The petitioner has preferred this application, under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking
quashing of the order dated 07.07.2017 passed by the learned
Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Raxual at Motihari (in short
the learned S.D.J.M., Raxual at Motihari ) in Chhauradano P.S.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40984 of 2017 dt.28-08-2026
2/12
Case No. 66 of 2015 / G.R. No. 326 of 2015 (T.R. No.
2987/2016), whereby the bail-bond of the petitioner has been
cancelled and a direction was given to issue non-bailable
warrant of arrest against him.
2. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner, being
the proprietor of M/s Mangaldeep Rice Mill, Chhauradano, East
Champaran, had received 38,241.20 quintal of paddy for milling
in the year 2012-13, which, as per the agreement and after
milling 67% CMR, comes to 25621.6040 quintal rice, which
had to be deposited till 31.12.2014, but the petitioner had
deposited only 21,600 quintal rice in the Depot of the
Corporation and, thus, has embezzled Rs. 87,09,024.76/-, i.e. ,
the price of 4021.6040 quintal rice @ Rs. 2165.56/- per quintal.
3. Accordingly, a First Information Report, bearing
Chhauradano P. S. Case No. 66 of 2015, dated 15.04.2015, for
the alleged offences under Sections 409, 418 and 420 of the
Indian Penal Code (in short the I.P.C. ) was registered.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that vide order dated 10.07.2015 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 25656 of 2015, this Court has granted anticipatory
bail to the petitioner, whereafter the petitioner furnished bail-
bonds before the learned Trial Court, which was accepted vide
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40984 of 2017 dt.28-08-2026
3/12
order dated 16.07.2015.
5. After concluding the investigation, the police
submitted a chargesheet in the aforesaid case, whereafter the
learned Trial Court vide order dated 30.03.2016 took cognizance
of the offences under Sections 409 and 420 of the I.P.C. and,
accordingly, the case was sent for trial under Trial No. 2987 of
2016.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the Hon’ble High Court, while granting bail vide order
dated 10.07.2015, did not impose any condition. However, the
Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (in short
the B.S.F.C. ), filed a special leave petition (SLP) before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court vide S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9728 of 2016, the
lead case being S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1779 of 2016, impugning all
those orders, including the order dated 10.07.2015 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 25656 of 2015, and by different Benches of this Court
granting anticipatory bail to all such accused persons. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of the aforesaid S.L.Ps. under
order dated 28.02.2017 with certain directions and observations,
which is evident from Annexure-3 appended to the present
application.
7. Learned counsel points out that in the case at
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40984 of 2017 dt.28-08-2026
4/12
hand, the District Manager, B.S.F.C., Motihari (opposite party
No. 3 herein) filed a petition before the learned Trial Court on
21.03.2017 for cancelling the bail-bond of the petitioner in
terms of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9728 of 2016.
8. The learned Court of S.D.J.M., Raxual at
Motihari, by a cryptic order dated 07.07.2017, cancelled the
bail-bonds of the petitioner in the light of the order of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the aforesaid S.L.P. (Crl.) No.
9728 of 2016 and issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against
the petitioner.
9. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the
learned S.D.J.M., Raxual at Motihari, hurriedly, without
properly examining the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, has passed the order impugned, which, in fact, is in teeth
of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and as such, the
learned Trial Court has committed contempt of the orders
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is further contended
that opposite party No. 3, i.e. , the District Manager, B.S.F.C.
has, in fact, misled the learned Trial Court by concealing the
relevant and material facts and without properly appreciating the
same and based on total misinterpretation of the order of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40984 of 2017 dt.28-08-2026
5/12
Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned Trial Court passed the
order impugned in the present petition, which is unsustainable in
the eyes of law.
10. On behalf of the petitioner, it has vehemently
been argued that on 12.01.2017, the learned Trial Court directed
the matter to be placed on 21.04.2017 for appearance of the
accused, but without even recalling the aforesaid order, in the
meantime, vide order dated 21.03.2017, passed an order on the
petition filed by opposite party No. 3, i.e., the District Manager,
B.S.F.C., issuing notice to the petitioner as to why the bail-bond
be not cancelled in the light of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. This, itself, speaks about the conduct of the learned Trial
Court, which without recalling the aforesaid order fixing the
case on 21.04.2017, when the matter was directed to be taken
up, hurriedly, took up the matter on 21.03.2017, a month prior to
the next appointed date and passed an order issuing show-cause
to the petitioner with respect to cancellation of his bail-bond on
the petition of opposite party No. 3. The conduct of the learned
Trial Court is highly objectionable and condemnable and
appears to be alien to the established procedure of law.
11. At last, learned counsel for the petitioner draws
the attention of this Court to the order passed by the Hon’ble
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40984 of 2017 dt.28-08-2026
6/12
Supreme Court and submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
nowhere directed cancellation of the bail-bonds of any of the
accused persons who had been granted anticipatory bail by
different Benches of this Court. In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has granted liberty to the B.S.F.C. (O.P. No. 3) to require
the accused persons to furnish bank guarantee(s) and, in the
event such bank guarantee(s) are not furnished or, having been
furnished, lapse, to have the same renewed within a period of
one month. It has further been directed that, in the event of
failure on the part of the accused persons to furnish or renew
such bank guarantee(s) within the stipulated period, the
anticipatory bail or bail granted to them shall stand cancelled.
Learned counsel, thus, submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has not directed cancellation of the bail-bonds suo motu , except
upon failure to comply with the aforesaid condition.
12. Thus, it has been submitted on behalf of the
petitioner that the District Manager, B.S.F.C. (opposite party
No. 3) has deliberately misled the learned Trial Court not only
by concealing the real facts but also by filing the petition on
erroneous interpretation of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
13. Relying upon the aforesaid submissions,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40984 of 2017 dt.28-08-2026
7/12
without even properly examining and appreciating the same, the
learned Trial Court cancelled the bail-bond in the most
mechanical manner, which is not only bad in law but also
untenable in the eyes of law.
14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
opposite party No. 2 & 3, i.e. , the B.S.F.C., initially, tries to
persuade this Court with respect to the correctness of his
interpretation of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court and, in
fact, insisted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed for
cancellation of bail-bonds of such accused persons who have
been allowed anticipatory bail. But when he was made to
confront with the operative part/direction of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, as contained in Annexure-3 to this application
passed in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1779 of 2016, he very fairly and
candidly admitted that on the basis of mis-interpretation, a
petition was filed in the learned Trial Court, leading to
cancellation of the bail-bonds of the petitioner.
15. This Court, while considering the application
and submission so advanced on behalf of the petitioner and
opposite party No. 3, directly comes to the operative part of the
directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is contained at
page No. 26 of the order dated 28.02.2017, which reads as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40984 of 2017 dt.28-08-2026
8/12
hereunder :-
“Since the anticipatory bail/bail was
granted more than one year back and financial
interest of the State is or can be secured, we are not
inclined to cancel the anticipatory bail/bail but modify
the order of granting of anticipatory bail/bail
conditional adding conditions as follows:
(1) The accused in all the FIR(s), will
ensure that bank guarantee, if not furnished, is
furnished and if lapsed, is renewed within a period of
one month from today failing which the anticipatory
bail/bail granted will stand cancelled.
(2) The accused will cooperate with
investigation/trial and their failure to appear, when
required, will be a ground for cancellation of
anticipatory bail/bail. An order of cancellation will be
passed by the trial court on being satisfied about such
failure.
(3) The investigation will be completed
within a period of three months.
(4) All the accused will be tried only at five
places viz. Patna, Gaya, Chhapra, Darbhanga and
Purnia by officers of the appropriate rank determined
by the High Court within one week from today. The
High Court may specify the area of jurisdiction of the
said five courts by a public order. If required by the
High Court, the State Government may sanction extra
strength of officers with requisite infrastructure so
that normal work of courts is not disturbed on account
of the special arrangement for these cases.
(5) The officers posted will deal with these
cases exclusively. If free from their work, any other
work may be assigned to the said officers.
(6) The concerned authorities will be at
liberty to encash the bank guarantee(s) after holding
that there is a breach of terms of the agreement which
decision will be subject to appropriate remedies of the
parties.
(7) If not otherwise encashed, the bank
guarantee will be kept alive till the trial is over.
However, deposits/furnishing of bank guarantees will
be abide by further orders of the trial court, interim or
final.
(8) If any amount is deposited by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40984 of 2017 dt.28-08-2026
9/12
accused, the said amount will be adjusted in the
amount of the bank guarantee, which is to be
furnished by the accused.
(9) The accused will surrender their
passports to the respective courts within a period of
four weeks from today and will not leave the country
without prior permission from the concerned court.
On compliance of the above order, if any
accused is in custody, he will granted bail in
accordance with law.
And other proceedings between the parties
will remain unaffected by this order and the same can
proceed in accordance with law.”
16. From perusal of the aforesaid directions, it is
indisputably evident that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not
issued any kind of direction to the learned Trial Court to cancel
the bail-bond of the accused persons suo moto. In fact,
considering the various aspects of the matter, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that it is not inclined to cancel the
anticipatory bail/bail, but modify the order granting anticipatory
bail/bail conditional adding certain conditions in which one of
the conditions was that the accused in all the FIRs will ensure
that bank guarantee(s), if not furnished, is furnished and, if
lapsed, is renewed within a period of one month from today,
failing which the anticipatory bail/bail granted will stand
cancelled.
17. In the case at hand, the opposite party No. 2 &
3, i.e. , the B.S.F.C., have not come up with the stand that in
pursuance of the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40984 of 2017 dt.28-08-2026
10/12
petitioner has not furnished any bank guarantee. On the
contrary, it has come up with stand that in terms of the
directions so passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order
dated 28.02.2017, the bail-bonds of the accused persons are
liable to be cancelled, merely on the basis of the above said
order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
18. This notion, conception and interpretation of the
order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 28.02.2017 on behalf
of opposite party No. 3 is miserably fallacious and based on
gross mis-interpretation of the same and as such the same is
untenable in the eyes of law.
19. It is not the case of opposite party No. 3 that the
petitioner has misused the privilege of bail/anticipatory bail,
violated any mandatory direction issued by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, failed to comply with any direction of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, or failed to furnish the bank
guarantee(s) in terms of the order passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, rather the only stand taken on behalf of
opposite party is that the anticipatory bail/bail granted to the
petitioner is liable to be cancelled on account of the order dated
28.02.2017 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However,
from perusal of the said order, it is evident that no such direction
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40984 of 2017 dt.28-08-2026
11/12
has been issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
20. The learned Court of S.D.J.M., Raxaul at
Motihari, by a very cryptic order dated 07.07.2017, cancelled
the bail-bond without even properly considering the orders,
directions and conditions stipulated by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, merely on the basis of the petition filed on behalf of
opposite party No. 3. The learned Courts are expected to act
with due care and diligence and discharge their judicial
functions strictly in consonance with the settled principles of
law and prescribed procedure. At the same time, they are duty-
bound to discharge their onerous duties as Judicial Officers
independently and judiciously, and not merely on the basis of
the submissions advanced by the informant/the prosecution or
the defence.
21. Cancellation of bail is a serious matter, as it
directly curtails the personal liberty of an individual. Such
liberty cannot be curtailed on the basis of a cryptic order which
neither discloses any violation of the conditions or stipulations
imposed while granting bail nor identifies any positive direction
issued either by the Court granting bail, any higher Court, or the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, which may have been violated by the
petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40984 of 2017 dt.28-08-2026
12/12
22. It appears in the case at hand, the learned Trial
Court by a very cryptic and six-lines order cancelled the bail-
bond of the petitioner, which not only shows total non-
application of judicial mind but also reflects that it has been
passed in the most mechanical manner, which is not only
reckless, casual but also against the settled canons of judicial
principles.
23. Accordingly, the order dated 07.07.2017 passed
by the learned S.D.J.M., Raxual at Motihari in connection with
Chhauradano P.S. Case No. 66 of 2015/G.R. No. 326 of 2015,
cancelling the bail-bond of the petitioner, is, hereby quashed and
set aside and as such, the bail-bond, so furnished earlier by the
petitioner, stands restored.
24. The application stands allowed, accordingly.
25. The interlocutory application(s), if any, also
stands disposed off.
(Rana Vikram Singh, J)
saurabh.kr/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 02.09.2026
Transmission Date 02.09.2026