Gulabi Lal Sah v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53082 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-142 Year-2024 Thana- GHORASAHAN District- East Champaran ====================================================== Gulabi Lal Sah Son of Late Hiralal Sah Resident of Vill- Bagaha Nagrwa Tola, P.S.- Ghosrasahan, District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
NORTH BIHAR POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, APP For the O.P. No.2 :
Mr. Padma Deo Narayan, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 03-10-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
2. The petitioner apprehend his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 341, 323, 353, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3.
As per the prosecution case in brief is that a team was constituted on 15.03.2024 to disconnect the electricity connection of the consumer who does not deposit the outstanding amount. When the team raided petitioner's house, petitioner refused to deposit the dues amount of the electricity amounting Rs. 2218/- of five months. Then his electricity connection disconnected. In the meantime, another co-accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53082 of 2024(4) dt.03-10-2024 2/2 Hari Narayan Sah abused and threatened to kill and forcibly made connection of electricity.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioner was not present at the alleged place of occurrence. It is further alleged that raiding party was demanding illegal gratification which was also protested by family members of the petitioner and mohalla people. Petitioner has clean antecedent.
5.
Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submits that petitioner has misbehaved with the raiding team and also made obstruction in discharging the departmental work. 6.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also nature of accusation against this petitioner, this anticipatory bail petition stands rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Ranjeet/- U T