Ram Babu Prasad vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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 order dated 16.07.2015.

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.

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.

Learned counsel points out that in the case at 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.

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.

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 Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned Trial Court passed the order impugned in the present petition, which is unsustainable in the eyes of law.

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.

At last, learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the order passed by the Hon’ble 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.

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.

Relying upon the aforesaid submissions, 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.

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.

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 hereunder :-

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.

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 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.

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.

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 has been issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The application stands allowed, accordingly.

The interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.