IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-24363 of 2009 Date of Decision:11.3.2010 Smt. Geeta and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sanjeev Sura, Addl. A.G. Haryana. Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for modification of order dated 26.8.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, to the effect that condition imposed of depositing 40% of penalty amount within 7 days with the DHBVNL while granting anticipatory bail be deleted. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that, if at all, the penalty amount is to be recovered, the same can only be recovered from Yogesh Kumar in whose name the meter stands. The anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner in the said FIR cannot be made as subject to the assessment of the penalty, which is imposed against said Yogesh Kumar. CRM M-24363 of 2009 -2- It is an admitted position that the order of assessment by licensee for offence of the theft under Section 135 of Electricity Act has been issued to one Yogesh son of Sh. Dev Dutt, which is placed on record as Annexure R-2/4. Thus, the penalty if at all has been assessed against Yogesh Kumar. However, FIR has been registered not only against Yogesh Kumar but all the family members including the ladies under Sections 332,353,186,379,506 of IPC and Section 135 of Electricity Act. There is merit in the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. Yogesh Kumar has already been granted regular bail. It is also admitted that the meter stands in his name. Notice to consumer by licensee for compounding the offence of theft of electricity under Section 135 and Section 152 of Electricity Act, 2003 has also been issued against Yogesh Kumar. Thus, the coercive method to recover the said amount cannot be used against the other members of the family i.e. petitioners. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and order dated 26.8.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, is modified only to the extent that condition imposed, of depositing, 40% of penalty amount within 7 days with the DHBVNL for the grant of anticipatory bail shall stand deleted. 11.3.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE