Anticipatory Bail Granted Based on Parity in PDS Food Grain Misappropriation Case

The applicant, a 61-year-old agriculturist, sought anticipatory bail following an inspection of a Fair Price Shop (FPS) at Katinda on 23.02.2026 by the Food Inspector

The inspection revealed serious irregularities in the Public Distribution System (PDS), including a shortage of rice, sugar, gram, and salt valued at ₹15,72,032/-

It was alleged that despite recording biometric authentication through E-POS machines, food grains were not distributed; instead, thumb impressions were obtained to facilitate misappropriation

Consequently, an FIR (Crime No. 71/2026) was registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Essential Commodities Act

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated due to political rivalry stemming from his wife’s role in the Gram Panchayat

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the allegations of misappropriating PDS supplies

2. Whether the principle of parity applies due to the prior grant of bail to a similarly situated co-accused

The Court considered Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant anticipatory bail

The substantive charges were framed under Sections 318(4) (cheating), 316 (criminal breach of trust), and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, alongside Section 3(7) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955

The court also applied the rule of parity in criminal jurisprudence, ensuring consistent treatment of similarly situated co-accused during the bail process

The Court evaluated the nature of the dispute and the material on record against the applicant

While the prosecution alleged a planned misappropriation of essential commodities, the Court noted that the applicant was a senior citizen with fixed assets and no immediate flight risk

Crucially, the Court observed that a similarly situated co-accused, Dilsai, had already been granted bail by the High Court in MCRCA No. 610 of 2026 on 23.04.2026

The Court reasoned that since the allegations against the applicant were comparable to those against the released co-accused, the applicant was entitled to the benefit of parity

Without commenting on the ultimate merits of the trial, the Court found the applicant's undertaking to cooperate with the proceedings sufficient to justify protection from custodial interrogation

The Court held that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on a personal bond and one local surety, subject to conditions: (a) non-interference with witnesses; (b) non-prejudicial conduct toward the trial; (c) regular appearance before the trial court; (d) submission of Aadhaar verification; and (e) abstaining from future similar offences