Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 482
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438
- Electricity Act, 2003 s. 135(1)(a)
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Jay Sengupta, J.) 2
Judgment
Ms. Sohini Adhikari Ms. Arpita Biswas Mr. Aniket Mitra Ms. Baishali Basu Ms. Debjani Sahu …for the petitioner. …for the WBSEDCL. …for the State.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner has not committed the offence as alleged. The lodge in question was closed at the relevant time. Although the petitioner had undertaken to pay 50% of the assessed amount by a particular date, he was unable to comply with the undertaking.
Learned counsel appearing for the WBSEDCL submits that no payment has been made by the petitioner. This is a case where the petitioner had consumed electricity by hooking.
Learned counsel appearing for the State relies on the case diary and submits as follows. As per the statements of locals, the petitioner was running the Lodge cum 2 Restaurant at the relevant time and he had drawn electricity illegally. In fact, there is no meter in the said Lodge. All the electricity was drawn by hooking. Such hooking would, among other things, cause safety issues in the locality.
Considering the incriminating materials available in the case diary, I do not consider this to be a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Jay Sengupta, J.) 2
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.