AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
Crl.M.A. 32317-18 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 4740/2018
Petitioner impugns the bail order dated 23.08.2018 whereby a condition has been imposed on the petitioner to deposit 35% of the impugned theft
assessment bill.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the property and had rented out the same to Mohd. Nadeem and
Mohd. Sharif and thereafter physical possession of the premises was with the said tenants and he was not in control of the electricity meter and if
there was any tampering or theft of the electricity, since the tenants were in physical possession, they were liable for the same. Thereafter the
petitioner approached the Permanent Lok Adalat for settlement, however, the amount of bill being beyond his reach, he could not pay the same. Since
the amount was not paid the prosecution continues.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the name of the tenants being disclosed to the Investigating Officer, the tenants have not
been made accused. He further submits that the condition of deposit of 35% of the impugned theft assessment bill is onerous. He further submits that
such a condition could not be imposed for grant of bail. Â
Learned counsel appearing for BSES-YPL relies on the judgment of the coordinate bench in “Sanjit Malik & Anr. Vs. The State (NCT of
Delhi) & Ors.†ILR (2008) II Delhi 524 to contend that there can be a pre-condition of pre deposit of part of the amount as a pre-condition for grant
of bail.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 23.08.2018 is modified to the extent that the petitioner is
directed to deposit 20% of the impugned theft bill within a period of one month from today. The other terms and conditions shall remain the same.
The petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.