Basgit Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 25 September, 2014

[Cites 12, Cited by 1]

Jharkhand High Court

Basgit Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 25 September, 2014

Bench: H.C. Mishra

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                A.B.A. No.1220 of 2014

             Basgit Singh                                           .....   Petitioner
                                       Versus
             The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance               ....      Opposite Party

             CORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA

             For the Petitioner             :       Mr. Manoj Tandan
             For the Vigilance              :       Mr. T.N. Verma, Advocate
                                            -----

4/25.9.2014

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the Vigilance.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30 of 1999 corresponding to Special Case No.7 of 1999, for the alleged offences under Sections 120-B, 201, 353, 379, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act and also under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The case relates to theft of electrical energy on a large scale and the FIR was instituted in the year 1999 itself, in which the petitioner has not been made accused. Subsequently, after about 14 years, the petitioner has been made accused in the case with the allegation that the petitioner, at the relevant time, was working as Executive Engineer and at a particular factory the meter was sealed in such a manner that the theft of electricity was quite possible in spite of sealing of the meter. Petitioner had also put his signature on the concerned documents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the memo of the charge, it would be apparent that it was found that one Shivshankar Jha, who was the Junior Engineer, had sealed the meter and said accused has already been granted anticipatory bail, which would be apparent from the impugned order itself. Learned counsel accordingly, prayed for anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the Vigilance has opposed the prayer submitting that due to the fact that the meter was loosely sealed, huge loss was caused to the Electricity Board, but the fact that the meter was sealed by the said Junior Engineer and he has been granted anticipatory bail, is however not controverted by the learned counsel for the Vigilance.

In the facts of the case and since the Jr. Engineer, who had sealed the meter, has been granted anticipatory bail, I am inclined to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of surrender / arrest, the petitioner Basgit Singh shall be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount of each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi, in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30 of 1999, corresponding to Special Case No.7 of 1999, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(H. C. Mishra, J) R.Kumar

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court