Sunil Yadav @ Sunil Kr. Yadav v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.5279 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-126 Year-2013 Thana- GAMAHARIYA District- Madhepura ====================================================== Sunil Yadav @ Sunil Kr. Yadav, son of Mahendra Yadav, Resident of VillageKoriyar, P.s-Gamharia, District-Madhepura. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. North Bihar Power Distribution Company, ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dinesh Prasad Verma, Advocate For the NBPDCL :

Mr. Deepak Kumar AC to Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 15-02-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the North Bihar Power Distribution Company.

Petitioner in the present case is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Gamharia P.S. Case No. 126 of 2013 registered for the offences punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations of consuming the electricity by committing theft is false and frivolous but the petitioner is willing to deposit 50% of the assessed loss of Rs. 3,91,000/- for the purpose of grant of anticipatory bail subject to the final outcome of the Police Case. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the North Bihar Power Distribution Company submits that this case

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5279 of 2019(2) dt.15-02-2019 2/2 is of the year 2013 and the police has submitted a charge-sheet showing the petitioner absconder. It is submitted that once the petitioner has been shown as absconder and charge-sheet has been filed, the petitioner cannot claim the privilege of anticipatory bail in the facts of the present case. It is submitted that the offer which is being made to deposit 50 % of the assessed loss amount may be made before the court below when the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail.

In the given facts and circumstances of the case, while this Court is not willing to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, this Court would direct that in case the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail within three weeks from today and offer to deposit 50% of assessed loss amount, his prayer for bail shall be considered by the court below on the same day and shall be disposed of considering the entire materials available on the record including the offer of the petitioner.

The application stands disposed off.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) avin/-vedU T