IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2266 of 2010 BHAGWAN SINGH, son of Late Ram Sakal Singh resident of village- Bairiya, Police Station- Sahebganj, D- Muzaffarpur…. Petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 25.02.2010 Mr. Kailash Nath Diwakar, learned counsel for the petitioner though present in court submits that even today he is not feeling well and would request for adjourning the case for a period of one week. Let it be noted that while Mr. Diwakar was present in the court room for a long duration even yesterday he had sought similar adjournment at the time of rising of the court on the ground of his illness. This Court however finding him to be hale and hearty had therefore given liberty for renewing such prayer, if need be, at the time of commencement of the proceedings on the next day i.e. today. Mr. Diwakar has again made a prayer to the same effect after remaining present in court today for more than two hours, which by itself would go to show that he despite being fully capable of arguing his case has been projecting his feigned illness only as a ground for avoiding this bench in his bench hunting device in the background that a couple of days earlier he was quite indecent to this 2 Court when an application for anticipatory bail being Cr. Misc. No. 43526 of 2009, Geeta Devi Vs. State of Bihar argued by him was dismissed by a reasoned order dated 22.2.2010. Thus when this Court has found that the ground of illness of the counsel is a mere pretence to avoid the bench, specially constituted in this week by Hon'ble the Chief Justice to dispose of the old pending cases of anticipatory bail, this Court in presence of Mr. Diwakar, who has kept on sitting and hearing the submissions of the counsel for the State has taken up the case for disposal. Having heard counsel for the State as also perusing the record including the impugned order, it would be clear that offence under Section 406, 353 of the I.P.C. and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act is well established inasmuch as in course of investigation the police has found that out of 400 quintals of food grain, 188 quintals of rice was misappropriated by the petitioner. Obviously, it cannot be said that the present case would fall within the parameters of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or such allegation has been made against the petitioner only with the object of humiliating him. A person authorized to deal with public grains as a 3 P.D.S. dealer is supposed to be honest in his transactions and thus when there is a direct allegation of misappropriation of 188 quintals of food grains by the petitioner, also found fully substantiated in course of investigation by the police, is good enough for rejection of the prayer for his anticipatory bail, inasmuch as the following finding of the court below:- "............The Block Development Officer has alleged in his written petition that 400 quintals of food grains was given to the petitioner who is licencee of PDS shop for distribution among the poor labours working under NAREGA Scheme under Scheme no. 25/06-07, 31/06-07 and 33/06-07. The petitioner distributed only 212 quintals of food grains and the remaining 188 quintals of food grains was misappropriated by the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to explain and produce the stock register and distribution register but the petitioner never appeared before the authority. An officer was deputed to inspect the shop of the petitioner but the petitioner was found absent. It is alleged that 188 quintals of rice was misappropriated by the petitioner. During the course of investigation the allegation against the petitioner was found true. The petitioner has misappropriated 188 4 quintals of rice meant for distribution among the poor laboures." has not even been remotely referred to and/or explained in the bail application much less described as an error of record. Additionally this Court would also find that the petitioner has also not made any statement about his criminal antecedent in the bail application which is of vital importance for considering the prayer of anticipatory bail. His only explanation that in the relevant period he had gone to Bombay and that some other PDS dealer had been authorized to distribute the food grain of his shop has also not been supported by any documentary evidence and thus when the police in course of investigation has found the allegations against him in the F.I.R. to be fully substantiated, this Court would hold that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. That being so, this court does not find any merit in this application and accordingly the same is dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)