Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amjadkhan @ Bade vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 12 September, 2017
1 MCRC No.9869/2017
(Amjadkhan @ Bade & Anr. vs. State of M.P.)
12.09.2017
Shri D.S. Tomar, Counsel for the applicants.
Shri Vivek Bhargava, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
This is an application under Section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail.
The applicants apprehend their arrest in Crime No.103/2017 registered by Police Station Kachnar, District Ashoknagar for offence punishable under Sections 353, 294, 323, 186, 506, 332, 333, 34 of IPC.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that initially the applicants were arrested and were produced before the Court and were released on bail under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. The allegation of committing theft of electricity is false.
Per contra, it is submitted by the State Counsel that the Junior Engineer along with the staff had gone for controlling the theft and he found that the applicants had taken the electricity connection directly from the transformer. When the electric wire was seized and other proceedings were being done by the Junior Engineer, at that time the applicants came there started abusing the Search Party and assaulted the member of the Search Party by pelting stones and fists and blows, as a result of which Hari Narayan sustained dislocation of right shoulder joint as well as fracture of 2 nd ribs of right axial border in chest. It is further submitted that the x-ray report was received on 9.6.2017 and the application under Section 2 MCRC No.9869/2017 437 of Cr.P.C. was also allowed on 9.6.2017, therefore, it is clear that the Magistrate might not be knowing the fact that the fracture was suffered by injured as it is clear that the x-ray report was not available in the case diary.
In reply, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that after the bail was granted, the applicants have not misused the liberty and they have honestly and regularly paid the electricity charges and in support of their contention, the electricity bills have been placed on record.
From the electricity bill, it appears that 80 units, 70 units and 70 units were consumed by the applicants in the months of May, June and July, 2016 respectively. However, for the month of August, 2016 the consumption was 0 unit. Again in the month of October, 2016 the consumption was 0 unit, in the months of January, February and March, 2017 the consumption was 0 unit. Again in the month of June, 2017 the consumption was 0 unit and in the intervening period the maximum consumption was of 100 units in the month of November, 2016 and for the remaining months the consumption was in between 70 to 80 units.
Considering the fact that in certain months, the consumption of electricity was 0 unit, it gives an indication that the allegation made in the FIR with regard to commission of theft of electricity was probable. This application is accordingly rejected.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
(alok) Judge