Intakhab Alam v. State Of West Bengal And ANR

26.11.2021 Serial no.122 Aloke (Through Video Conference) Ct. No. 29 CRM 3382 of 2021 In re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 12.04.2021 in connection with Ekbalpore Police Station Case No. 190 of 2019 dated 21.05.2019 under Sections 135/138 of the Electricity Act.

-AndIn the matter of : Intakhab Alam ... ...Petitioner Mr. Indranil Halder, Advocate ... ... For the Petitioner Mr. Narayan Prasad Agarwala, Advocate Mr. Pratick Bose, Advocate ... ...For the State Mr. Anirban Tarafder, Advocate ... ... For the CESC Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail.

Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that initially pursuant to the order granting bail deposited Rs.4 lacs, although, the amount of final assessment is in excess of Rs.12 lacs. He submits that the petitioner is presently in a position to deposit a further sum of Rs.2 lack. The prayer for anticipatory bail should be considered.

Learned Advocate appearing for the Distribution Company submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender. There are other instances where the petitioner was found guilty of theft of electricity. He submits that the petitioner violated the order of the Court granting bail. The jurisdictional Court directed the petitioner to deposit the entire amount of claim.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the past antecedents of the petitioner and considering the gravity of the offences, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

The prayer for anticipatory bail is, thus, rejected. CRM 3382 of 2021 is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Debangsu Basak, J.) (Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)