SATISH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 who, in spite of service of notice, has not appeared.

(2.) IN this application, the petitioner has challenged that part of the order dated 24.8.2000 whereby, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi while granting bail to the accused/opposite party No. 2 in Kotwali (Sukhdeonagar) P.S. Case No. 247/2000 corresponding to G.R. No. 1775/2000, has entered into merit of the allegations made in the FIR and has also made observation on the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations in the FIR. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has observed that the outstanding dues is Rs. 16,974.68/ - Paise as shown on the last bill. He also held that the loss to the Electricity Board amounting to Rs. 20,000/ - is exorbitant.

(3.) IT appears that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi was considering the application for bail filed by the accused in connection with Kotwali (Sukhdeonagar) P.S. Case No. 247/2000 corresponding to G.R. No. 1775/2000 registered under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 39/44 of the Electricity Act. It is alleged that the accused was committing theft of electric energy by hooking in his STD. Booth and by this, he has caused loss to the Board to the tune of Rs. 10,000/ -.