Bheem Ram v. The Bihar State Electricity Board, Now Known As Bihar State Power Holding Company Through Its Chair

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.45533 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -592 Year- 2013 Thana -GAYA MUFFSIL District- GAYA ======================================================

1. Bheem Ram S/o Late Karu Ram, Resident of Mohalla- Bulla Shaheed (Near Jagjivan College), P.S.- Maofassil, Distsrict- Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, Now Known as Bihar State Power Holding Company through its Chairman.

2. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Nawal Kishore Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 16-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner prays for aniticipatory bail in connection with Muffasil (Gaya) P.S. Case No. 592 of 2013 registered for the offences punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that this out and out case wrong billing of the Electricity Board. It has further submitted that earlier bill of Rs. 96,000/- had been submitted to the petitioner but later on along with the penalty their final bill worth of Rs.1,71,676/- It has further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the bill of the petitioner is not correct in this connection he has lodged a protest before Power Holding Company no reply has been received, rather case has been lodged against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the Power Holding Company opposes the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45533 of 2016 (2) dt.16-12-2016 2/2 prayer of bail application. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for Power Holding Company that this is a case of theft of Electricity and due to that the aforesaid amount has been levied against the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and other materials reflected from the record including the impugned order, I am not inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly the prayer for bail is rejected.

The petitioner may surrender before the court below after three weeks from today and pray for bail, if he does so. However in the mean time the company shall examine the protest petition of petitioner and submit the report before the court below who shall consider the same and disposed of on the same day on its own merit without being influenced by the present order.

Thus, this petition is accordingly disposed of. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) siddharth/- U T