Mithun Kumar Mandal v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53894 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-74 Year-2023 Thana- PALASI District- Araria ====================================================== 1.
MITHUN KUMAR MANDAL S/o- RAJ KUMAR MANDAL VillageUrlaha Ward no-7, Ps- Palasi Dist- Araria 2.
Vijay Kumar Mandal son of Satya Narayan Mandal Village- Urlaha Ward no-7, Ps- Palasi Dist- Araria 3.
Niraj Kumar Mandal son of Satya Narayan Mandal Village- Urlaha Ward no-7, Ps- Palasi Dist- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Gopal Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Zainul Abedin ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 09-11-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Palasi P.S. Case No.74 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under sections 341, 342, 323, 379, 504, 506, 353 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135, 381 of Electricity Act, 2003.
3. As per allegation, the Electricity supply branch along with raiding team and departmental mechanic went to take meter reading of electricity bill, based on secret information, and found that the consumers were consuming
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53894 of 2023(3) dt.09-11-2023 2/2 electricity illegally with the help of PMC wire. The petitioners were one of them. It is further alleged that when the team were returning home, the petitioners along with other co-accused persons snatched Rs.83,530/- and assaulted the Supervisor.
4. When the members of Electricity Department, after collecting the dues of electricity bills, were returning, the petitioners and other accused persons attacked the members of Electricity Department and they snatched Rs.83530/- from their possession and also assaulted them.
5. In my view, the petitioners do not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T