IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7703 of 2010 Nabab Mian @ Nabab Hussain, Son of Late Manaur Hussain, Resident of Marwari Mohalla, Ward No. 16, P.S. and District-Gopalganj ……………………………..Petitioner. Versus The State of Bihar ……………………………Opposite Party. ----------- 3. 08. 04. 2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Gopalganj P.S. Case No. 138/09 dated 22. 07. 2009, registered under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code as also Section 39 and 44 of the Electricity Act. According to the prosecution case, the petitioner is alleged to have committed theft of electricity as a result of which Bihar State Electricity Board has sustained a loss of Rs. 2,00,000/-. In compliance of the order dated 25. 03. 2010, a supplementary affidavit has been filed today in Court stating therein that petitioner is a chronic patient of Tuberculosis and is till undergoing treatment at a Private Hospital, namely, Shankar Hospital and Research Centre at Siwan. It is also claimed that petitioner is a poor person and on these grounds prayer has been made that some lenient view may be taken directing the petitioner to deposit certain amount in the court below subject to outcome of the case. Learned counsel for the State, though opposed the prayer for anticipatory, has not disputed the aforesaid factual position. 2 In the aforesaid background, it is directed that petitioner should deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) within a period of six weeks from today in the court below which shall be subject to outcome of the case and if such a deposit is made then within the same period, in the event of his arrest/surrender the petitioner, namely, Nabab Mian @ Nabab Hussain, 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, Gopalganj, in connection with Gopalganj P.S. Case No. 138/09, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C. It goes without saying that if amount fixed by this Court is not deposited by the petitioner under the time fixed (six weeks) then it would be deemed that prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected by this Court. m.p. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)