Allowed

Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Oct 2010CRM-M/24424/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This was a bail petition filed by the petitioner in a case of theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. Having deposited the compounding fee and preferred an appeal, with further custody no longer required for investigation, the High Court declared the interim bail order absolute.

What did the court decide?

The interim bail order dated 25.8.2010 was made absolute and the petition was disposed of.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2010) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Misc M – 24424 of Date of decision: 25.10.2010

Sanjeev Kumar

…Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and ors

¶7

…Respondents

¶8

Present: Mr GL Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr VPS Sidhu, AAG Punjab.

¶9

S.S.SARON, J.

¶10

Heard counsel for the parties.

¶11

The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him for the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

¶12

The FIR against the petitioner has been registered for the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 on the allegations that the petitioner was found to have put a direct ‘Kundi’ connection and thereby committed theft of electricity. Memo dated 30.6.2010 (P2) was issued regarding provisional assessment of theft of electricity and an amount of Rs 9,30,825/- was assessed. The petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of Rs 1,80,000/- as compounding fee to save himself. The final order of assessment dated 27.7.2010 (P3) was passed and the finally assessed charges were assessed at Rs 5,33,673/-. The petitioner was required to deposit the same within 7 days of the service of the said notice. The petitioner was also given the option of preferring an appeal within 30 days of the order before the appellate authority. Besides, it was intimated that for

¶13

Cr Misc M-24424 of 2010

¶14

¶15

the theft of energy, the FIR has been registered and if he wanted, he could deposit Rs 90,000/- as compounding fee. The petitioner has now deposited a sum of Rs 1,77,891/- vide receipt (P4). Besides, he has preferred an appeal against the final order of assessment dated 27.7.2010 (P3). Therefore, it is submitted that the necessary compounding fee having been deposited, the petitioner is not liable to be proceeded against in the criminal case.

¶16

In consequence of the interim bail granted on25.8.2010, the learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Balraj Singh of PS APT, Bathinda, submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation and his further custody is not required for the purposes of investigation.

¶17

In the circumstances, the interim order dated 25.8.2010 is made

¶18

absolute.

¶19

This petition stands disposed of. 25.10.2010 ASR

¶20

( S.S.SARON ) Judge

Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jameel Vs State of Haryana

Charanjit Kaur @ Charan Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Gurvinder Singh Vs State of Ut Chandigarh

Daljit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Swastik Trading Co. Vs Kloeckner Pentaplast Inida Pvt. Ltd.

Gurdip Singh @ Bagga Vs State of Punjab