IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3358 of 2009() -------------------------------------- CRIME NO.324/2009 OF THALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KANNUR. PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ JOMON JOSEPH,AGED 38,S/O.K.E.JOSEPH, KANATTU HOUSE,KARIMPAM POST, THALIPARAMBA,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.(FOR S.I.OF POLICE, CRIME NO.324/09,THALIPARAMBA P.S.) SRI. M.S BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 3358 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.324/2009 of Thaliparamba Police Station, Kannur. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner, who is running a hotel, drew electricity from the neighboring electrical connection, where the meter is not working and thus committed theft of electrical energy. 4. I have gone through the case diary. The Anti Power Theft Squad of the Kerala State Electricity Board conducted inspection in the premises on 9/06/2009 and illegal drawing of electrical line and theft of electrical energy was detected. On the basis of the petition submitted by the Asst. Engineer,Electrical Section, Thaliparamba, F.I.R was registered. The site mahzar prepared by the Anti Power Theft Squad was also attached with B.A. No. 3358/2009 Page numbers the petition submitted by the Asst. Engineer. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the motor was used for drawing water to the common water tank, water where from is used by all the occupants in the rooms. It is submitted that the motor is not used for the personal benefit of the petitioner, but for the benefit of all concerned. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence, if any, could be committed with the connivance of the landlord and not by the petitioner. The site mahzar prepared by the Anti Power Theft Squad would reveal that apart from the motor,freezers, grinders and air conditioners fitted in the rooms of the hotel were also being operated with the electrical energy, which is the subject matter of the allegation of theft. Therefore, prima facie, I do not find any ground to accept the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is not responsible for any of the offending acts and that theft of electrical energy took place only with the connivance of the landlord. 6. The allegations levelled against the petitioner disclose B.A. No. 3358/2009 Page numbers serious offences. The petitioner has approached this court by filing this Bail Application for the grant of anticipatory bail. The question whether the offence is compoundable or not is not a matter which is relevant now, for considering the application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the materials on record, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm