Ram Sewak Yadav v. State Of Bihar And ANR
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19934 of 2015 (3) dt.16-07-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.19934 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -512 Year- 2013 Thana -SHERGHATI District- GAYA ======================================================
1. Ram Sewak Yadav son of Late Janki Yadav, resident of MohallaDeodhar Khap, P.S.- Sherghati, P.O.- Bisunpura, District- Gaya .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bihar, Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nagendra Prasad (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 16-07-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.
Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sherghati P.S. Case No.512 of 2013 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Allegedly, the petitioner was found using electric power stealthily causing loss total of Rs. 52,224/- to the Electricity Department and further at the time of raid the petitioner misbehaved with the raiding party and snatched the wire. Submission is that the petitioner has installed 63 KVA transformer of three phase line and for that he has also spent huge
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19934 of 2015 (3) dt.16-07-2015 amount and the alleged loss amount is much less to that amount and, as such, the amount may be set off with the amount already spent by the petitioner and, as such, the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration to which the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposes by submitting that there is no such provision to adjust the money and the petitioner was using electric energy stealthily.
In the facts and circumstances stated above, this Court is not persuaded to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T