The High Court拒绝 the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in a case involving theft of electricity. The court noted non-compliance with a prior order and the need for custodial interrogation, leading to the dismissal of the plea.
Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected and criminal miscellaneous application 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.10 C.R.M. (A) 382 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 .395 of 2022 dated 16.12.2022 under Section 135(1)(a) 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. Mr. Narayan Prasad Agarwala Mr. C.R. Ghosh …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) 382 of 2023 is dismissed.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of theft of electricity despite previous non-compliance with court orders.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Panchkari Dhara
State
WBSEDCL
Debangsu Basak
Md. Shabbar Rashidi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
