Patna High CourtCR. MISC./23827/2016rejected

Jawahar Lal v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2016-08-04Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.23827 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -131 Year- 2016 Thana -MOHANIA District- BHABHUA (KAIMUR) ====================================================== Jawahar Lal, s/o Ram Briksh Sah, r/v-Dandwa, P.S.-Mohaniya, Distt - Kaimur (Bhabhua) .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The South Bihar Distribution Company Ltd.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raju Kumar, Adv. For the SBPDCL : Mr. Padma Deo Narayan, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Murlidhar (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 04-08-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Mohania P.S. Case No. 131/2016, registered for the offences punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act.

The informant Junior Electrical Engineer, Electricity Supply Sub-division Mohania alleged that the premises of the petitioner having consumer no. BH 37165/MH2457 and metre no. 020530 was raided and it was found that service wire was bypassed and the petitioner was committing theft of electric energy causing loss of Rs. 92,779/- to the company.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner did not have consumer no. 37165. He was consumer and his bill I.D. No. is 37163 and bill of Rs. 37067/- was sent to the petitioner.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23827 of 2016 (4) dt.04-08-2016 2/2 Petitioner already deposited the entire amount on 30.03.2016. It appears that house of the petitioner was raided and it was found that the petitioner having consumer no. MH2457 and meter no. 37165/MH2457 was committing theft of electric energy. There may be some mistake in the meter number, but the consumer number is correct. Petitioner is not ready to pay the amount of loss caused to the department.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Vinita/- U T