IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2279 of 2010 1. ARUN SAH, son of Gauri Sah, resident of Gosaindaspur, P.S. Nathnagar, District Bhagalpur 2. Jogi Yadav, son of late Sakhichand Yadav, resident of Champanala Road, P.S. Nathnagar, District Bhagalpur Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 26.2.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State. The petitioners facing prosecution for offence u/s 379 I.P.C. and section 135 of the Electricity Act have their defence that they were not committed theft of electricity, inasmuch as they were receiving electricity from a generator of some other person. Counsel further submits that another bail application of two co-accused persons is pending before this Court in Cr.Misc.No. 5712/2010 and therefore, this Court should be heard alongwith that case. He has finally submitted that it would be better that this Court calls for the case diary and looks into the allegation. In the opinion of this Court the defence which has been projected by the petitioners is itself good enough to show that both of them were indulging in theft of 2 electricity. The moment it is admitted by them that they were receiving electricity from the generator, the first presumption would be that whether such person supplying electricity from the generator, namely, Amar Nath Narain Lal had a licence for running captive generator plant. The Electricity Act clearly provides that no one can generate/ transmit electricity by way of sale for commercial purposes without having licence and any one who would be receiving electricity from such source by way of distribution from an unauthorized licensee will be equally liable. In that view of the matter, this Court would not require to look into the case diary as the offence in question cannot be said to be altogether absurd and false, one of the necessary ingredient for grant of anticipatory bail. The submission that both the bail applications should be heard together will have no meaning because the petitioners’ prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected by a separate order and they had moved separately before the court below and 3 resultantly they have filed their separate bail application and thus that can always be disposed of without waiting for the result of the other case. That being so, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners when they are also not prepared to pay the amount of loss sustained by the Board must be and is hereby rejected. Let a copy of this order be placed in the records of Cr.Misc.No. 5712/2010. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/