P&H HC Denies Rice Millers Anticipatory Bail In Alleged ₹8-Crore Government Rice Loss As Site Checks Found No Evidence Of Claimed Dumping

The petitioners sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in an FIR alleging offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC, concerning the non-delivery of 18,885.2378 quintals of custom-milled rice (CMR) allotted to their rice mill for the 2023–24 season.

The Department assessed the outstanding recovery, including interest, at approximately ₹8.04 crore.

Although earlier stock inspections reportedly found the stock correct, the petitioners did not complete delivery by the extended deadlines and did not pay the assessed amount; they had undertaken to make good the loss and deposited ₹5 lakh.

The Sessions Court had granted interim protection and directed the petitioners to join the investigation.

During investigation, the petitioners said that deteriorated rice had been disposed of at identified sites, but inspections by the Scene of Crime Team and a departmental expert committee found no physical evidence of rice at those locations.

The State also alleged non-cooperation and sought custodial interrogation for recovery and further investigation.

The Court considered the petition under Section 482 BNSS (identified in the judgment as corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C.) and the alleged offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC, with corresponding BNS provisions also referred to in the judgment.

Relying on Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr., 2022 (4) RCR (Criminal) 977, the Court stated that the first consideration in an anticipatory-bail application is the prima facie case; the nature and seriousness of the offence and the severity of punishment must also be considered.

The absence of a need for custodial interrogation, by itself, is not a sufficient ground to grant anticipatory bail.

The Court treated the alleged shortfall and the Department’s assessment of approximately ₹8.04 crore as more than a mere contractual dispute.

It noted that the petitioners had undertaken to make good the loss but had not paid the assessed amount, and that their explanation that deteriorated rice had been disposed of was not supported by the subsequent inspections, which found no physical evidence at the identified sites.

In view of the prima facie allegations and the asserted need to recover the Government rice or its value and ascertain how the stock was dealt with, the Court concluded that the petitioners had not established grounds for anticipatory bail.

It clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not bind the Trial Court, which must decide the case on the evidence led.

Any pending applications were also disposed of.