IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15458 of 2011 TRILOKI @ TRILOKI NATH JAISWAL @ TRILOKI NATH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 20.05.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Electricity Act. The accusation is of committing theft of electricity and thereby causing loss to the tune of Rs. 2,37,983/-. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was the owner of the premise but it was leased out in favour of Bikrama Jaiswal and Kapis Jaiswal till 30.04.2010. It is submitted that during the course of investigation, it has come that it mill was run by the tenant. The petitioner claims to have paid the bill prior to lease. Considering the aforesaid facts, let the above named petitioner, be released on provisional anticipatory bail for six months, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of 12 weeks from today, on furnishing 2 bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua in connection with Durgawati P.S. Case No. 52 of 2010, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Let the I.O. verify about the factum of the lease and if it was actually leased out to Bikrama Jaiswal and Kapis Jaiswal then necessary action should also be taken against them for realizing of the allege loss amount, if it is not found that they are the lessee of the premises then the petitioner will deposit the alleged amount in question before the learned court below which will be invested in some fix deposit schemes which will be subject to the result of the case. On verification of the aforesaid facts, the provisional anticipatory bail of the petitioner will be confirmed by learned court below. Amrendra/- (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)