The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was accused of electricity theft involving a demand of over rupees eight lakhs, which he failed to deposit despite warnings.
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.
-1-
Crl.M.No.M-36048 of 2012(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-36048 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: January 8, 2013
Aman Goyal
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mrs.Monika Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
Crl.M.No.68591of 2012
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-36048 of 2012
The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.397, dated 17.8.2012, under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, registered at Police Station Anti Power Theft Ludhiana.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Brief allegations against petitioner-accused are that premises of petitioner was checked by officials of Electricity Department on 17.8.2012 and it was found that he was indulging in theft of electricity by using kundi connection. There was no electricity connection installed in the said premises. Hence, on the basis of load of electricity installed in the said premises, demand of `8,17,110/- was raised against the applicant-accused. He has failed to deposit the said amount. Request was made on behalf of the petitioner for depositing the said amount of penalty, however, the same has not been deposited despite availing 2-3 opportunities for this purpose.
-2-
Crl.M.No.M-36048 of 2012(O&M)
Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioneraccused.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Aman Goyal for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
8.1.2013 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of electricity theft.
Whether the petitioner fulfilled the condition of depositing the penalty demanded by the Electricity Department.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Aman Goyal
State of Punjab
Ram Chand Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
