Akhilesh Yadav @ Akhilesh Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32611 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-467 Year-2020 Thana- RIVILGANJ District- Saran ====================================================== AKHILESH YADAV @ AKHILESH RAY S/O RAJ KUMAR RAY R/o village- Pachpatra, P.S.- Revilganj, District- Saran, at present residing at Prabhat School Phase, Rinku Bhai Chai, Room No. 8, Silvassa, Dadar and Nagar Haveli- 396230 ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

The North Bihar Power Distribution Co. Ltd through Junior Electric Engineer, Electrical Supply Section, Revilganj, Distt.- Saran, Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Binod Kumar Sinha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shyameshwar Dayal, APP For the Electricity Dept.:

Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh, Asst. Standing Counsel ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 19-05-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned assistant standing counsel for the Electricity Department. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Rivilganj P.S. Case No. 467 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 135 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003. As per allegation, the premises of the petitioner was raided and it was found that flour mill was being run without electricity connection. Domestic connection was found in the name of his mother Teju Devi. Due to this act of the petitioner the electricity department sustained a loss of Rs. 5,01,580/-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32611 of 2021(5) dt.19-05-2022 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was not residing there. He is residing in Silvassa, Dadar and Nagar Haveli. The learned counsel expressed his inability to deposit even 25% of the loss sustained by the electricity department. The premises, as per FIR, was of the petitioner. The electricity department sustained a loss of Rs. 5,01,580/- due to act of the petitioner, as such, I do not think it to be a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U