Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 283 (JHR)

Sunil Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2014-02-20

R.BANUMATHI

body2014
Order Petitioner is represented by learned counsel Mr. Ramawatar Sharma and the opposite party-State is represented by Mr. Tapash Kabiraj, A.P.P. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Jainagar P.S. Case No. 189 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 1190/2013 under Sections 135/138 of Electricity Act and Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 20.8.2013 under the direction of the Superior authority of Electricity Department, J.S.E.B., a raid was conducted by Junior Engineer, Electric Supply Section Jainagar along with his associates in Jainagar. It is further case of the prosecution that the petitioner was found committing theft of electricity from L.T. Line. It is further alleged that five meters PVC wire was also recovered from the possession of the petitioner. 5. It is stated that the petitioner and other accused persons are alleged to have found stolen electricity from the L.T. Line and Jr. Engineer lodged a complaint against the petitioner and other accused persons. Based on the complaint, a First Information Report was registered under sections 135/138 of Indian Electricity Act and 353 IPC at Jainagar Police Station being Jainagar P.S. Case No.189 of 2013. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent. He has given his land on leased license to Idea Cellular Company for installing its tower and electricity from the L.T. Line was taken only by the said Company. Therefore, the petitioner is nowhere responsible for the alleged theft of electricity from L.T. Line. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there was no theft of electricity committed by the petitioner and the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount to the Electricity Board as alleged in the F.I.R. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there is cogent material against the petitioner and other accused persons to show that the petitioner and other accused persons have stolen electricity from the L.T. Line in Jainagar. He also submitted that seizure list shows that five meters PVC wire has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there is cogent material against the petitioner and other accused persons to show that the petitioner and other accused persons have stolen electricity from the L.T. Line in Jainagar. He also submitted that seizure list shows that five meters PVC wire has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He further submitted that petitioner and other accused persons have abused the informant and prevented him from discharging his official duties and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to privilege of anticipatory bail. 8. According to the petitioner, electricity connection was given only to Idea Cellular Company for installing its Tower on the land of the petitioner and the complicity of the petitioner is alleged theft of electricity but at the same time, it is stated that outstanding dues of electricity is said to be Rs.20,000/- only. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is allowed subject to condition that the petitioner would deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- in the office of Junior Engineer, Electric Supply Section, Jainagar within a period of 30 days from today. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, is directed to surrender before the Court below within a period of three weeks from today and on such surrender, he is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in connection with Jainagar P.S. Case No. 189 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 1190/2013 subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr. P.C. 10. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner does not comply with the condition of depositing Rs.20,000/- within a period of 30 days before the concerned authority, the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner shall automatically stand cancelled. In case of acquittal of petitioner in the criminal case, he is at liberty to make representation before the concerned authority for adjustment of deposited amount towards electricity bill. Bail granted.