Patna High CourtCR. MISC./42466/2015rejected

Laddu Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2015-10-13Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.42466 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -49 Year- 2014 Thana -SAHJAHANPUR District- PATNA ====================================================== Laddu Kumar son of Raj Kumar, resident of village- Abdullahpur, P.S.- Fatuha, District- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Assistant Engineer, South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Upendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Sahin Begam, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 13-10-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Shahjahanpur P.S. Case No.49 of 2014 registered under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 469 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The first information report has been instituted on the basis of written report submitted by one Sanjay Kumar Sharma, an Assistant Electrical Engineer of the South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited (for Short 'the Company). It has been alleged that the petitioner and one Upendra Kumar fraudulently got receipts of the Company printed and issued those

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42466 of 2015 (2) dt.13-10-2015 2/2 receipts to several villagers after realizing money from them in the name of providing electrical connection. It is also alleged that the fraudulent and deceitful act of the petitioner has caused huge loss to the Company.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has got no concern with the alleged money receipts issued in the name of different persons. He submitted that there is no signature of the petitioner on the receipts in question.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of pre-arrest bail.

Regard being had to the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to grant pre- arrest bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is rejected.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Md.S./- U T