Bal Krishna Yadav v. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Energy Department Patna And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1121 of 2014 ======================================================

1. Bal Krishna Yadav Son of Late Fuleshwar Yadav Resident of Village - Chandaur East, P.S. - Saur Bazar, District - Saharsa .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Energy Department Office situated at Daroga Prasad Roy, P.S. - Kotwali, District - Patna.

2. The North Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd., through its Chairman.

3. The Electrical Executive Engineer, STF., N.B.P.P.C.L.

4. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, S.T.F., N.B.P.P.C.L.

5. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Saharsa.

6. The Electrical Assistant Engineer, Saharsa.

7. The Electrical Junior Engineer, Sour Bazar, Saharsa .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Sandesh Roy, Adv. For the Respondent 1 : Mr. Anjani Kumar Jha, AC to AAG IV For the respondents 2 to 7 : Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD ORAL ORDER 24-06-2015 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Bihar State Electricity Board.

This is a petition for quashing the first information report alleging therein that the electricity was being consumed by illegal means taking the LTC line and the electricity was being supplied to the tower of Vode Phone.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, preferred a criminal miscellaneous petition, being Cr. Misc. No. 19597 of 2014, for anticipatory bail, in which it has been observed that if the petitioner files personal affidavit stating his intention and deposits the amount as per procedure prescribed, then, the authority, concerned, in the event of filing of such application, no coercive action

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.1121 of 2014 (2) dt.24-06-2015 2/2 shall be taken against the petitioner for six weeks. However, the petitioner has not deposited the amount though order has been passed on 23.07.2014.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is covered under Section 126 of the Electricity Act.

However, having regard to the allegation, it is not a fit case and I do not find any merit in this case.

This petition is dismissed.

(Gopal Prasad, J) SA/- U √ T √