[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2279 OF 2008 Mr.Salim Ahmad Ansari ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.Shailesh Kantharia Advocate for Applicant Mr.H.J.Dedia APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JULY 21, 2008 DATE : JULY 21, 2008 DATE : JULY 21, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in LAC No.8 of 2008 of Meghwadi Police Station, Mumbai. The said case is under Section 135 of Electricity Act. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the applicant is running a garment factory and has been using Electric Meter No.5851180 on 16.6.2008 when the applicant’s garment factory was inspected, it transpired that electric energy was being stolen directly and the electric meter was not functioning. Thus, the applicant committed theft of electric energy. The prosecution case is that [-2-] the theft of electric energy was committed from 4.6.2007 to 16.6.2008, however, the case of the applicant is that he took the premises on leave and licence basis only from 1.3.2008. The learned APP has pointed out that in the said leave and licence agreement also there is overwriting in respect of date. The investigation has revealed that the applicant has been running the garment factory in the said premises since a year prior to the FIR. The documents collected by the Investigating Officer clearly show that there is prima facie material against the applicant. The material on record in respect of applicant no.1 is such as to point out an accusing finger towards him. The Apex Court has observed in the decision of Directorate Directorate Directorate of Enforcement Vs.P.V.Prabhakar Rao reported in of Enforcement Vs.P.V.Prabhakar Rao reported in of Enforcement Vs.P.V.Prabhakar Rao reported in 1997, SCC (Cri.) 978 1997, SCC (Cri.) 978 1997, SCC (Cri.) 978 that when the material gathered by the prosecution is such as to point out an accusing finger towards the accused, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. Application is rejected and is disposed of accordingly. [-3-] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]