IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13449 of 2010 Pawan Kumar Chaudhary @ Pawan Chaudhary, S/o Gareeb Das Chaudhary, resident of Village- Ladaniya, P.S.- Ladaniya, District- Madhubani……………….Petitioner. Versus The State of Bihar ……………………….Opposite Party. For the petitioner :- Mr. Suraj Kr. Yadav, Advocate. Mr. Saroj Kr. Yadav,Advocate. For the State :- Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, A.P.P. ----------- 2. 14. 05. 2010. Heard the parties. In a criminal prosecution for offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 39/44 of the Electricity Act, the petitioner was allegedly having illegal electricity connection in his hotel causing loss of Rs. 51,000/- to the Bihar State Electricity Board. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allegations against the petitioner are absolutely false, and, in fact, the criminal prosecution is not maintainable in the eye of law. But without going into the merit of the case, in response to the query of the Court, he has taken a very fair stand that petitioner would be depositing Rs.51,000/- in the court below provided, that it is not be construed as admission of the guilt by the petitioner and money deposited is made subject to outcome of trial. In view of the aforesaid fair stand, the petitioner is directed to deposit Rs. 51,000/- within a period of six weeks from today in the court below, and if such a deposit is made, then within the same period in the event of his arrest/surrender in connection 2 with Ladania P.S. Case No. 138/09, the above named petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C. However, it is made clear that money deposited by the petitioner shall be subject to outcome of the trial of the petitioner in the present case and the deposit made by the petitioner would not be construed as admission of the guilt by him. It is further made clear that in case, petitioner fails to deposit the aforesaid amount within time fixed by this Court, then it would be construed that prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail has finally been rejected by this court and in that case, the petitioner would be obliged to surrender in the court below and seek regular bail. m.p. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)