Crl.M.No.M-4946 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-4946 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 1, 2010 Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.R.S.Cheema, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Puneet Jindal, Advocate and Mr.Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.D.Sachdeva, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Mr.Sukhbir Singh Mattewal, Advocate for the complainant-PSEB. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.12, dated 3.2.2010, under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003, registered with Anti Power Theft Police Station, Patiala. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. Brief allegations against the petitioner-accused are that he is consumer of Punjab State Electricity Board (for short `PSEB') having account No.LS-8 and having sanctioned load of 544.614 kw. The said meter was checked by Sr.Xen, Enforcement, Khanna and Sr.Xen, MMTS, Mohali, and it was found that the petitioner had peeled off the insulation on the secondary wires of all the three phases of CT and had shortened them with small loops of thin wires and hence two parallel paths instead of one were provided for current from secondary of CT's to the meter and in this manner, current contribution from the CTs going to the meter was reduced and hence, he was controlling the recording of energy consumption in the Crl.M.No.M-4946 of 2010 (O&M) -2- meter and indulging in the theft of electricity. It was also found that the meter was also running slow by 54.24% and hence, as it was a case of theft of energy, even Senior Executive Engineer, MMTS, Mohali, was also called at the spot, who also submitted his report. The checking was done in the presence of petitioner and he was also informed about the report. He also signed the said report. The meter/metering equipment was paper sealed by Senior Xen Enforcement, Khanna and Senior Xen Operation Division, Rajpura, and by the petitioner himself. For safe custody, CT/PT was removed through private vehicle on duty with the Board and it was placed in a locked garage in Grid colony by the Sub Divisional Officer (West), PSEB, Rajpura. However, allegations are that during the night petitioner got broken the lock of the garage of the residence of Xen, PSEB, Rajpura, in which the vehicle carrying metallic cup board containing CT/PT was placed and petitioner in inclusion with some persons tempered with the said meter/metering equipment and removed the wires/loops and hence he has also tempered with the evidence and in this regard fresh FIR No.28, dated 3.2.2010, under Sections 457, 380, 511, 201, 120-B IPC was also got registered at Police Station Rajpura City, against the petitioner. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- accused that he has been paying electricity bills regularly. It has also been contended that inspection of the meter used to be done regularly. It is further contended that checking has not been done as per the rules and regulations and that it is not possible to create loop in CT/PT on such a heavy load. It is also contended that civil writ petition has also been filed on the similar facts by the petitioner and vide order dated 30.3.2010 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.4528 of 2010, a Coordinate Bench of this Court directed for restoration of connection subject to the condition that the petitioner would deposit Rs.25 lacs, which was deposited. Bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned State counsel on the ground that new CT/PT was drawn from store on 11.8.2004 and the paper seals and lead seals were fixed on 1.12.2004 and that during the said period the tempering was got done by the petitioner with the help of some skilled gang by putting thin wires to short circuit the secondary wires of Red, yellow, and blue phases of the CT/PT by peeling off its insulation. It is also contended that about 12 senior Executive Engineers have also been Crl.M.No.M-4946 of 2010 (O&M) -3- charge-sheeted in the present case, whereas two senior Executive Engineers alongwith one Sub Divisional Officer and one Junior Engineer were also suspended. It is further argued that petitioner was committing theft from the date of installation of meter/metering equipment and hence even if the lead seals/paper seals were intact, it would not make any difference. It is further contended that even CD of the inspection was made and photographs of the CT/PT was also taken showing how the petitioner short circuited the secondary wires on all the three phases of the CT. It has also been contended that an amount of Rs.1,51,37,705/- alongwith compounding fee of Rs.54,46,000/- was calculated to be charged from the petitioner as per Rules and regulations. It has also been contended that there is no violation of any Rules and regulations as in the present case, the theft has been declared and hence, the case false under Regulation 37.2(2)(i) of the Regulations, Annexure P4. Hence, it is submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner-accused is necessary so as to find out the gang engaged by him for preparing the loops and committing the theft and whether the said gang had also committed another theft in similar manner in other industrial premises and also to find out the connivance of officers/officials of PSEB. It is further contended that in view of the fact that he has also tried to tamper with the evidence, there is every possibility of his tempering with the evidence and influencing the witnesses, if released on bail. I have considered all the facts of the case. Allegations against the petitioner-accused are very serious in nature. There is force in the argument of learned State counsel that custodial interrogation of the petitioner-accused is required to find out the persons allegedly engaged by him for preparing the loops and committing the theft. Involvement of officers/officials of PSEB in theft of electricity in such a large scale is also to be find out. It is also to be find out as to whether the said persons and the officers/officials of the PSEB are involved in theft in similar manner in other industrial premises. Hence, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused. Rather, his custodial interrogation is necessary. Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any Crl.M.No.M-4946 of 2010 (O&M) -4- opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner- Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. Interim order of stay dated 23.3.2010 and 23.2.2010 already granted in favour of petitioner-accused stands vacated. 1.9.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge