In this oral order, the High Court of Patna dismissed an application for anticipatory bail filed by Rupesh Kumar Gupta. The court refused to grant bail as the First Information Report prima facie disclosed the theft of electricity.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26765 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-23 Year-2019 Thana- SARSI District- Purnia
======================================================
RUPESH KUMAR GUPTA @ RUPESH PRASAD Son of Munilal Gupta, Resident of Village - Sarsi Bazar, P.S.- Sarsi, Distt.- Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pramod Kumar Mallick For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Atul Chandra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER
This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Sarsi Police Station Case No. 23 of 2018, disclosing offences under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act.
The allegation against the petitioner, as per the First Information Report lodged by the Junior Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-Division, Purnea, is that the premises of the petitioner was inspected by the Assistant Electric Engineer, and the petitioner was found using the electricity by hooking a wire from the L. T. line, despite being the fact that previous electric
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26765 of 2019(8) dt.29-08-2019 2/3
connection of the petitioner was disconnected due to nonpayment of Rs. 76,188/-. It has further been alleged that the inspecting team has assessed a sum of Rs. 4,022/-, as loss incurred to the North Bihar Power Corporation Company Limited (NBPDCL) for using the electricity unauthorizedly by the petitioner.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that no material has been produced by the informant in order to substantiate the allegation that the petitioner was using the electricity unauthorizedly inasmuch as no wire or any other material were recovered from the premises of the petitioner.
On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the NBPDCL, submits that from perusal of the First Information Report itself, it is evident that the petitioner was using the electricity unauthorizedly and was committing theft despite the fact that earlier electric connection in the premises of the petitioner was disconnected and a total sum of Rs. 80,210/has been assessed by the inspecting team as the amount for unauthorizedly use of electricity by the petitioner as well as the earlier due amount.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26765 of 2019(8) dt.29-08-2019 3/3
After having heard learned Counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the First Information Report prima faci e discloses the theft of electricity by the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
U √ T √
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case alleging theft of electricity under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act.
Rupesh Kumar Gupta @ Rupesh Prasad
The State of Bihar
Sita Ram Prajapati
Anil Kumar Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
