Skip to content


Chakrawarti Prasad Vs. State of Bihar - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
SubjectCriminal;Electricity
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 1049 of 2000
Judge
Reported in(2002)10SCC390
AppellantChakrawarti Prasad
RespondentState of Bihar
Excerpt:
- [ k.t. thomas and; r.p. sethi, jj.] -- criminal procedure code, 1973 — s. 438 — anticipatory bail — electricity pilferage — appellant-accused willing to deposit the amount of charges of electricity alleged to have been pilfered — respondent stating the amount due from appellant to be more than rs 1 crore — amount due, when worked out for a period of six months only, crossing the figure of rs 40 lakhs -- dr rajeev dhavan pointed out that the appellant has already remitted rs 20 lakhs pursuant to the order passed by the high court. considering all aspects we think that anticipatory bail can be granted to the appellant on a condition that he should remit a sum of rs 21 lakhs within a period of six months......dhavan pointed out that the appellant has already remitted rs 20 lakhs pursuant to the order passed by the high court.3. considering all aspects we think that anticipatory bail can be granted to the appellant on a condition that he should remit a sum of rs 21 lakhs within a period of six months. if he remits one-third of that amount within one month from today he shall be released on bail. we permit him to surrender before the court concerned on or before the expiry of one month from today after remitting seven lakhs, being the first instalment and the court shall release him on bail on his executing a bond with two solvent sureties, provided he would give an undertaking to the court that within the next 3 months thereafter he would remit a further sum of rs 7 lakhs and yet another.....
Judgment:

 

K.T. Thomas and; R.P. Sethi, JJ.

1. Leave granted.

2. We were not initially inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court because it was passed in the discretion of the High Court. But Dr Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Counsel, under instructions, submitted that the appellant would deposit the amount of electricity charges of the power alleged to have been pilfered. Mr B.B. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent worked it out to be more than a crore of rupees. We are not at present interested in fixing up as to the precise amount due from the appellant. If the charges of electricity alleged to have been pilfered can be worked out even for a period of six months, it may even cross the figure of 40 lakhs of rupees, according to the counsel. Dr Rajeev Dhavan pointed out that the appellant has already remitted Rs 20 lakhs pursuant to the order passed by the High Court.

3. Considering all aspects we think that anticipatory bail can be granted to the appellant on a condition that he should remit a sum of Rs 21 lakhs within a period of six months. If he remits one-third of that amount within one month from today he shall be released on bail. We permit him to surrender before the court concerned on or before the expiry of one month from today after remitting seven lakhs, being the first instalment and the court shall release him on bail on his executing a bond with two solvent sureties, provided he would give an undertaking to the court that within the next 3 months thereafter he would remit a further sum of Rs 7 lakhs and yet another sum of Rs 7 lakhs will be remitted within 3 months thereafter. We make it clear that if the appellant fails to remit any one of the instalments he shall forfeit the benefit granted to him by this order. The amount deposited will be without prejudice to the contentions of the rival parties and subject to the adjustment to be made at the final end. We stay his arrest for a period of one month from today to enable him to comply with the condition mentioned above.

4. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

 


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //