Court No. - 75

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL

APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 14683 of 2021

Applicant :- Naveen Kumar

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Other

Counsel for Applicant :- Sumit Goyal

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

Heard over anticipatory bail application moved under Section

438 of Cr.P.C., by applicant- Naveen Kumar, in Case Crime No.

1339 of 2021, under Section- 135 of Electricity Act, Police

Station Anti Power Theft, District- Saharanpur.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has

been falsely implicated in this very case crime number; he is a

caretaker, a salaried employee at the place of occurrence

whereas the premises is owned by co-accused Sayeed and the

tower of Airtel is in the management of Yogesh Kumar Sharma,

G.M.O.- co-accused; first information report was got lodged

against all those three persons, with accusation of electricity

theft whereas, applicant is neither beneficiary nor of any

concern, he is merely a salaried employee for looking after the

premises; he is a disabled person, having no criminal antecedent

and offence punishable under Section 135 of Electricity Act is

compoundable, with maximum sentence up to seven years; his

anticipatory bail was rejected by Session Court and then after it

was moved before this Court, wherein, ad interim anticipatory

bail has been granted vide order dated 9.9.2021 by Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court; the same has been prayed to be confirmed.

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed but could not oppose

above factual aspects and even in counter affidavit too these

facts have not been disputed.

Having heard learned counsels and considering all these facts

and circumstances as well as the law laid down by Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT

of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98, there is sufficient ground

for grant of anticipatory bail.

As per Section 438 Cr.P.C., after grant of ad interim

anticipatory bail, application is to be possibly disposed of

within one month but about three months have been passed but

the same yet could not be decided, hence, the order dated

9.92021 is being confirmed and the interim anticipatory bail,

granted earlier, is being extended till filing of Police Report

under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., on previous conditions.

It is made clear that the court has not expressed any opinion on

the merits of the case.

Present application stands disposed of, accordingly.

Order Date :- 4.12.2021

Kamarjahan