Jharkhand High Court
Rajesh @ Raja Vishwakarma @ Rajesh ... vs State Of Jharkhand ...... Opposite ... on 31 August, 2018
Author: Anant Bijay Singh
Bench: Anant Bijay Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 1626 of 2018
Rajesh @ Raja Vishwakarma @ Rajesh Vishwakarma ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH
-----
For the Petitioner : Mrs Gouri Devi, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P
-----
C.A.V.on 27.08.2018 Pronounced on 31/08/2018
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Jhinkpani P.S. Case No. 01.2018, corresponding to G.R. No. 12/2018, the case registered under Sections 135/138 of the Indian Electricity Act. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the instant case is instituted.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Add.P.P. for the State The prosecution case, in short, is that on one Pramod Kumar Singh, Incharge Junior Electrical Engineer gave a written report on 02.01.2018 that he received a secret information theft of electricity, a raid was conducted in the crusher namely, M/s Vishwakarma Construction of the petitioner having consumer no. RNGP 5859 and during inspection, they found that seal of Meter Box of L.T.C.T Meter and C.T.Box was broken and after cutting the cable line between the transformer and meter box, the electricity was being theft and due to theft of electricity, the Electricity Department sustained loss of Rs. 223,87,120/-.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has got licence for running crusher plant for the period from 5.6.2015 to 30.11.2016 and he was running the plant till 30.11.2016. After expiry of the aforesaid period i.e. 30.11.2016 the crusher plant of the petitioner has been closed due to lapse of license and since then no work has been done, which will be evident from the letter dated 17.1.2018 issued from the Department of Mining and the petitioner had also requested the Executive Electrical Engineer to disconnect the line from the Transformer on 09.08.2016, but it was not done, rather raid was conducted in the premises of the petitioner. Hence, petitioner deserves bail.
On the other hand, learned A.P.P opposed the prayer for bail. From perusal of case diary, it appears that at para-3, the I.O has recorded the statement of the informant- Pramod Kumar Singh, at para-4 the statement of seizure list witness- Ajay Kumar Singh, at para-5, the statement of seizure list witness- Mukul Kumar, at para-6, the statement of witness- Pawan Kumar Mishra and at para-7, the statement of witness- Junul Topno have been recorded and they have supported the case of theft of electricity.
At para 13- the statement of Yadav Sawaiya and at para-14 the statement of Tata Kudada have been recorded and they have stated that on 02.01.2018, an inspection was made in the crusher premises and the petitioners asked to appear before the inspection team but he did not appeared before the informant at the time of raid.
In view of nature of allegation as alleged against the petitioner and also the fact that on call, petitioner did not appear before the inspecting team at the time of inspection in the premises of the petitioner, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner on anticipatory bail.
Further, petitioner, if so advised, may surrender in the court below and pray for regular bail, which shall be considered by the court below on its own merit and without being prejudiced by this order.
Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court.
( Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Raman/