Patna High CourtCR. MISC./26473/2016dismissed

Sanjay Sao And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2016-06-30Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.26473 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -11 Year- 2016 Thana -MARANCHI District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Sanjay Sao , son of Late Kameshwar Sao

2. Manoj Sao, son of Suresh Sao Both are resident of village- Maranchi, P.S. Maranchi, District- Patna

3. Sanjeev Kumar, son of Ram Tirath Singh, resident of village- Dumra, P.S. Maranchi, District- Patna .... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. South Bihar Distributor Power Company Pvt. Ltd. through its Chairman, Bihar, Patna .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Naresh Dass For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Akshay Lal Pandit ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 30-06-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Akshay Lal Pandit, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and Sri Vikash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the informant/Opp.Party no.2.

Three petitioners, apprehending their arrest in Maranchi P.S. Case no.11/2016 registered for the offence under Section 307 and other allied Sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of Electricity Act, have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were not meter-holders and there is no allegation that the petitioners have committed any theft of electricity. He submits

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26473 of 2016 (2) dt.30-06-2016 2/2 that false accusation was made that the petitioners participated in the occurrence and prevented the raiding party, whereas learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party no.2 submit that in the F.I.R. itself, there is specific accusation against the petitioners.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record, I do not find any ground to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail. The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U