1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1590 OF 2010 Shri Jitendra Parmanand Jindnani )..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra )..Respondent ---- Mr. R. B. Paranjape i/by J.D.Khairnar for the applicant. Smt. V. R. Bhosale APP for the State. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 26 th April, 2010 PC 1 This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant is shown as an accused in C.R.No.I-45/2010 registered by MSEB police station, Nashik Road, Nashik for alleged offences under Sections 138(d) and 150(1) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003. Perused the application and the affidavit which is filed. The case of the prosecution is that the complaint was lodged by the Deputy Engineer on the basis of secret information that the gang was working in the Nashik city who by remote control switches on and off electric meters. A trap was laid at one bunglow of Shalini Chavan and one Sandeep was caught red handed while giving a demonstration. After the arrest of Sandeep, he was produced before the Sessions Court Nashik and was granted P.C till 25.1.2010. During his interrogation he has disclosed that one Gulab Patil who has an electric shop had helped Sandeep Pawar. Police seized three remote controls from the shop of Gulab Patil. Gulab Patil was arrested on 19.1.2010 and was granted PC till 25.1.2010. He disclosed one of Sandeep’s partner by name Jitubhai the present applicant who resides at Jamnagar, Gujrat. Police party then 2 went to Jamnagar, Gujrat and certain raw materials of remote control and half made 3 phase & 1 phase remote control were seized under panchanama. 2 I had asked I.O to demonstrate to Senior officer from MSEB that the 10 remote controls seized could be used for stopping meter. As per the report, it appears that the instrument can be used for shutting down an electric meter even though electric supply continues. The matter is an extremely serious matter. Advocate for the applicant states that his client has a license for manufacturing. No license could be shown to me. Even assuming that he had a license to manufacture some electrical items, the investigation required on the question as to whether the items seized from his residence can be co- related either to the remotes seized or to any other electrical devise. Apart from this custodial interrogation is required to determine the market of the gadget in question and to find out and recover monies which have been collected by selling such a devise. Application is therefore, rejected. Advocate for the applicant states that he wants to move Apex Court and seeks stay. In my view, this is not a fit case for granting stay as it is possible that the distributors may be warned and the material which is required to be seized vanishes. Application is rejected. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 3 4