Kanti Kumari Devi @ Kanti Kumari @ Kranti Kuamri Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13106 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-486 Year-2019 Thana- BEGUSARAI TOWN District- Begusarai ====================================================== KANTI KUMARI DEVI @ KANTI KUMARI @ KRANTI KUAMRI DEVI Wife of Late Ram Ladak Singh @ Ram Balak Singh Resident of Mohalla - Sarvodaya Nagar, near Hanuman Mandir, Pokhar, P.S.- Begusarai Town and Distt - Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Sri Abhijit Kumar Son of Sri Brahmadeo Sah Resident of Village - Mundichak, P.S.- Tilka Manjhi, P.O. - Badi Post Office, Distt - Bhagalpur, Presently Posted as Jr. Engineer, Electricity Supply Division, Urban - 2, Begusarai, North Bihar Power Distribution Co. Ltd. Patna. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajesh Mohan, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Sumiran Rai, APP Mr. Ajay Kumar Gautam, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 08-10-2021 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Begusarai Town P.S. Case No. 486 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner is an old lady aged about 70 years and for

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13106 of 2020(3) dt.08-10-2021 2/2 her it is not possible to fix the wire for availing electricity. Nothing has been recovered from her possession. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner is named accused in the first information report and there is direct allegation of theft of electricity against her. There is recovery of wire also. Petitioner, therefore, does not deserve to be granted the privilege of bail.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T