1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Nineteenth day of October Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr. Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.11327 of 2011 P.MUTHUKUMAR ACHARI ... PETITIONER / SECOND ACCUSED Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ETTAYAPURAM POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.146 OF 2010 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. P.KAATHAN RAJKUMAR Advocate For Respondent :MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Addl. Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Apprehending arrest, at the hands of the respondent police, the petitioner, who is the second accused, in Crime No.146 of 2010 on the file of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 135(1)(c), 138(d) and 150(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, has come forward with this petition seeking anticipatory bail. 2. According to the case of the prosecution, the petitioner is the proprietor of the factory. The said factory was originally owned by the first accused. The petitioner purchased the same on 19.03.2010. Right from the year 2010, he is in occupation of the same. It is alleged that the petitioner, has committed theft of electricity, by tampering the metre. It was found by the officials during the suprise check. The quantity of electricity was estimated at Rs.19,16,572/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs and sixteen thousand five hundred and seventy two only). With these allegations, the present case has been registered. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would deny the said allegations. According to him, factory is not in position of running condition and therefore the question of tampering does not arise. 4. I have considered the above submissions. When a specific query was made to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the factory, after the purchase made on 19.03.2010, the learned counsel concede to the same. The occurrence has happened on 12.08.2010 and upto that date, the factory was being enjoyed only by the petitioner and not by the tenants. Hence, the petitioner is only responsible for tampering of the metre, as it is contended by the Additional Public Prosecutor. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. Having regard to the gravity of offence and considering the quantity of electricity consumed, and also considering the fact that public money has been misappropriated by the petitioner, under the Indian Electricity Act, this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. Hence, this petition deserves dismissal. 6. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. sd/- 19/10/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ETTAYAPURAM POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT. 2. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11327 of 2011 Date :19/10/2011 RJ/28.10.11 2p/3c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/