KALYAN MAHARAJ Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel appearing for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 39 /44 of the Electricity Act, in connection with Kasmar P.S. Case No. 28 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 383 of 2012 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat.

(2.) COUNSEL appearing for the petitioner has submitted that earlier he has filed anticipatory bail application on behalf of the petitioner in which after some argument permission was sought by the counsel for the petitioner to withdraw this application. Accordingly, the said prayer was allowed and the application was dismissed as withdrawn. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now he has come to know that another case has been lodged against the brother of the petitioner regarding the same consumer number. F.I.R. of the same is annexed in this application as Annexure -3. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that for the same consumer number two cases have been lodged and the petitioner has also deposited fine amount as alleged in the F.I.R. of the present case.

(3.) CONSIDERING all these aspects and considering the report submitted after investigation by Junior Engineer, Electricity Supply Section, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected. However, if the petitioner surrenders, the Court below will consider his case and also the fact that he has deposited the fine amount and pass order according to law.