1. Petition for anticipatory bail in FIR for theft of electricity under Section 135, Electricity Act, 2003. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 9139
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rupinderjit Chahal, J
Ravinder Pal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M-10744-2026
Important Points
Anticipatory bail may be denied if custodial interrogation is necessary for recovering evidence and uncovering the modus operandi of a grave offence, especially when no change in circumstances exists since a previous bail application was dismissed or withdrawn.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Anticipatory Bail - Custodial Interrogation - Necessity of custody for recovery of evidence - Where direct allegations of electricity theft exist and tools/wiring are yet to be recovered, custodial interrogation is essential for effective investigation and to uncover the modus operandi, outweighing individual liberty against societal interest. (Para 6, 8)
(B) Procedural Law - Subsequent Petition for Bail - Change in circumstances - A second petition for anticipatory bail is liable to be dismissed if there is no significant change in circumstances since the dismissal or withdrawal of the previous petition. (Para 4, 6)
(C) Judicial Discretion - Balancing Rights - Court must equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interests, considering the magnitude of the offence and the need for a fair investigation. (Para 7)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail despite the necessity of custodial interrogation for recovery of evidence and lack of changed circumstances from a previous petition.
(B) Procedural Law - Subsequent Petition for Bail - Change in circumstances - A second petition for anticipatory bail is liable to be dismissed if there is no significant change in circumstances since the dismissal or withdrawal of the previous petition. (Para 4, 6)
(C) Judicial Discretion - Balancing Rights - Court must equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interests, considering the magnitude of the offence and the need for a fair investigation. (Para 7)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail despite the necessity of custodial interrogation for recovery of evidence and lack of changed circumstances from a previous petition.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Lalit Sharma
For the Respondents: Amit Shukla
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Lalit Sharma
For the Respondents: Amit Shukla
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claimed false implication and civil dispute colored as criminal; State opposed citing grave allegations and necessity of custodial interrogation. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Court found allegations grave, petitioner failed to comply with bail condition, and custodial interrogation necessary for effective investigation. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. Anticipatory bail should be denied where custodial interrogation is essential for effective investigation and recovery of tools used in crime. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed as devoid of merits. (Para 8 , 9 )
6. What factors are considered while deciding an anticipatory bail plea?
Court considers the nature and gravity of offence, role of accused, need for fair investigation, and societal impact. (Para 6 )
7. Why is custodial interrogation important in electricity theft cases?
It is essential to recover tools and wiring, understand modus operandi, and ensure effective investigation. (Para 4 , 6 )
8. Can anticipatory bail be granted if the accused failed to comply with earlier bail conditions?
Failure to comply with conditions imposed by trial court is a ground to deny anticipatory bail. (Para 6 )
9. Is a subsequent anticipatory bail petition maintainable without change in circumstances?
No, filing a fresh petition without any change in circumstances since dismissal of earlier petition is not justified. (Para 4 , 6 )
RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.397 dated 03.09.2025 registered under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 registered at Police Station Anti Power Theft, District Ludhiana.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that, the petitioner has committed theft of electricity. Hence, the present FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said offence. He submits that the FIR in the present Case is concocted as the petitioner was not present at his shop when the inspection of the meter was carried out by the Assistant Executive Engineer. He submits that in his absence 3-4 persons made videography by illegally connecting a wire near his shop. He submits that the petitioner was granted concession of anticipatory bail by the learned Trial Court with the condition to deposit 50% of the disputed assessment amount. He submits that, however, the aforesaid condition could not be complied with as the order of the learned Trial Court was passed arbitrarily. He submits that the present is a civil dispute which has been given criminal colour. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.
4. The status report has already been filed by the learned State counsel, who, relying upon the same, has vehemently opposed the petitioner’s prayer for bail. It is submitted that the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. The learned counsel further contends that there are direct and specific allegations of theft against the petitioner. The petitioner had earlier filed a petition for anticipatory bail before this Court and the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.02.2026 and now, the petitioner has again approached this Hon'ble Court without any change in the circumstances. He further submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential to recover the tools and wiring used in the theft of electricity and to know the modus operandi of the crime. On these grounds, the learned State counsel has prayed for dismissal of the present petition.
5. Heard.
6. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave and disclose a prima facie case, wherein the petitioner, having been involved in theft of electricity was given concession of anticipatory bail by the learned Trial Court with the condition to deposit the 50% disputed assessment amount. However, the petitioner failed to comply with the aforesaid condition. Further, the tools and wiring so used for commission of the theft are yet to be recovered by the investigating agency. Moreover, the petitioner has filed the present petition without there being any change in circumstances since dismissal of earlier petition. While considering the plea for grant of anticipatory bail, this Court is required to consider the overall nature of offence and accusations against the accused, the manner of occurrence, the gravity of offence and the potential impact of granting pre-arrest protection to the petitioner, at this stage. Granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner with such allegations, at this preliminary stage, would not be justified as it may affect the course of fair investigation and undermine the seriousness of the alleged act. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation in the matter.
7. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude a
