The court rejected an application for anticipatory bail regarding arrest under the Electricity Act. Findings indicated a need for custodial interrogation due to involvement in electricity theft, leading to rejection of the bail plea.
The prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected and the application is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
09.02.2023
Sl.9 C.R.M. (A) 380 of 2023 Court No.29 (AD) In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of (Rejected) the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Haripal Police Station Case No .396 of 2022 dated 16.12.2022 under Section 138(1)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 amended in 2007. And In the matter of: Panchkari Dhara ….petitioner. Mr. Prasanta Kumar Banerjee Ms. Indrani Nandi …for the petitioner. Ms. Kum Kum Mitra …for the State. Mr. Aniket Mitra … for the WBSEDCL. The order dated January 31, 2023 remains uncomplied with. The materials in the case diary demonstrate a need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner. The petitioner is involved in the theft of electricity. In such circumstances, we are unable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.
C.R.M. (A) 380 of 2023 is dismissed.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case involving theft of electricity requiring custodial interrogation.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Panchkari Dhara
The State
WBSEDCL
Debangsu Basak
Md. Shabbar Rashidi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
