IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13832 of 2009 ***** Rajeev Ranjan Gupta aged about 30 years son of Sri Dinanath Gupta resident of P.O.-East Boring Canal Road, P.S. Budha Colony, Dist.-Patna, Bihar, Proprietor of M/s Zee Saheb Cosmetic Zone a proprietorship firm. …. …. Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar through the Secretary Law, Government of Bihar. …. …. Opposite party ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Gajendra Pratap Singh, Advocate For the Electricity Board : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma, Advocate For the State : Mr. J.S.P.Singh, A.P.P. ------------ 2. 15.4.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the Electricity Board and the learned A.P.P. for the State. In the normal course of things there may not have been an occasion to interfere with the order dated 25.2.2009 passed in A.B.P. No. 1283 of 2009, since there is a categorical statement recorded in the order granting bail that the petitioner was ready to pay the loss amount in installments for the so-called theft of electric energy attuning to Rs.6, 47,666/-. It seems from the order that the learned Sessions Judge got inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail on deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- as a first installment and the balance amount in installments of an average Rs.55,000/- over a period of ten months due to the stand of the petitioner. When the order was passed in the anticipatory bail application a modification petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner to exempt him from the onerous condition of deposit of the 10 installments on many a ground indicated in Annexure-5 in the present petition. Since the same was rejected vide order dated 27.3.2009, the petitioner has filed - 2 - the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As already noted in the earlier part of the order that the initial order granting anticipatory bail was made on a kind of concession made by the petitioner but it is also a fact that the bill raised is a subject- matter of dispute in a civil writ application and the final word on the said bill and the quantification of it is still to come. In that view of the matter, the Court is inclined to modify the anticipatory bail order dated 25.2.2009 to the extent that the petitioner would not be required to deposit the balance amount in 10 installments over next 10 months which shall be any way subject-matter to the final adjudication by the forum which the petitioner has approached. The petitioner would be now enlarged on bail on deposit of Rs.1,00,000/-, which I am told has already been made and his bail shall be confirmed. The application is allowed. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)