Balkrushna Ramaji Mudholkar v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer Of Police Station Msedcl, Link Road, Nagpur
aba.606.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 606 OF 2017 ( Balkrushna Ramaji Mudholkar..vs..State of Maharashtra, through PSO.PS.MSEDCL, Link Road, Gaddigodam,Nagpur) Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Shri P.W.Mirza, Advocate for applicant.
Shri T.A.Mirza, A.P.P.for State- non-applicant. CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 This is an application for pre-arrest bail.
Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.P.P. for State-non-applicant.
Since the applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.4095/2017, registered with P.S. MSEDCL, Gaddigodam,Nagpur, for the offence punishable under Sectins 135 and 138 of the Indian Electricity Act,2003 the applicant is before this Court.
As per the prosecution case, for 18 days in the month of June, the applicant stealthlly fetched power to run his Bhagyyalaxmi Stone Crusher, situated at village Masod, Taluka and District Amravati and thereby committed the offence as envisaged under Sections 135 and 138 of the Indian Electricity Act.
It is not in dispute that on 17/7/2017, the company MSEDCL issued the assessment bill for disputed period of 18 days for Rs.1,46,655/-. It is also not in dispute that on the very next day i.e. 18/7/2017 the entire amount as assessed by the company is paid by the present applicant.
aba.606.17.odt As per the scheme of the Indian Electricity Act it is for the complainant to get the offence compounded. However, if the applicant wish to contest he has every right to contest the said assessment bill as reached and drawn by the company.
The anticipatory bail is opposed by the learned A.P.P. In view of the reply filed by the non-applicant that coaccusd one Mr.Khan who according to the prosecution was responsible for tampering with the gadgets of the company is absconding and to trace out him the application for anticipatory bail is opposed.
It is not the case of the prosecution that present applicant in any way help in abscontion of the accused. In that view of the matter, for tracing out the said co-accused, the custodial presence of the applicant can never be warranted by the investigating officer. In that view of the matter, the present application is to be allowed and accordingly it is allowed and order passed by this Court on 22/8/2017 stands confirmed.
JUDGE Kitey