PRAMOD KUAMR MEHTA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following order of the Court was passed by L.C. Bhadoo, Ag C J.-One of us, Learned Brother (Justice Sunil Kumar Sinha), has referred the following question to be adjudicated by a Larger Bench, that is how the matter has been placed before us :- "Whether a petition filed u/s 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail, during the period of mandated custody of the protective umbrella shaE be maintainable even after expiration of the period of mandated custody during the pendency of such application without the applicants being surrendered to the custody? or such petitions would not be maintainable after expiration of the period of protective umbrella opened in favour of the applicants and that shall be dismissed as not maintainable after expiration of the said period?

(2.) In order to appreciate point of reference made by Brother Justice Sinha, it is necessary to narrate brief facts leading to making of this reference.

(3.) Applicants namely, Pramod Kumar Mehta and Ankit Mehta were apprehending their arrest in Crime No. 330/2006, registered at Police Station Jamul, District: Durg for offence punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 126 & 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. On 4/9/2006, Assistant Engineer Ramswaroop Sinha of subdivision Chhavni of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board lodged a written report in the Police Station Jamul, Bhilai to the effect that on 4/9/2006 at the time of inspection of electric connection of the mini plant of consumer M/s Kankai Steel Pvt. Limited Service No. 1001077, Plot No. 138, L.I.A. Bhilai. It was detected that consumer was committing theft of electricity by tampering with seal of electric meter. Theft of electricity was estimated to the tune of 9 lakhs unit per month and by committing such theft. Director (Owner) Pramod Mehta, Ankit Mehta and other Directors have caused loss to the Electricity Board.