PARSHOTAMBHAI VASHRAMBHAI MALAKIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present application under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - original accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR being I-CR No.3222 of 2021 registered with the GUVNL Police Station, District Rajkot for the offence punishable under Ss. 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

(2.) Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. That, on a bare reading of the FIR, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out. It is further submitted that the applicant is not at all involved in the so called offence as the applicant is simple businessman doing imitation jewelry work and is having a commercial connection and is using 40KV and for just 5 KV why would the applicant steal electricity from PGVCL illegally. It is further submitted that there is no proof with the authorities regarding the applicant had stolen the electricity by installing 20 mtr. wire. It is submitted that the officers of PGVCL raided the premises at 3 a.m. at night and no one was there even to see that the wire was illegally installed or not and statement of neighbors are also not taken. Therefore raiding the premises at 2 a.m. at night by the officers creates suspicion on the officers and shows the misuse of the power by the officers of PGVCL.

(3.) Learned advocate for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent Court for his remand. He would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant-accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. Ultimately, it was submitted by learned advocate for the applicant to allow present application.