05/08/2025 D/L 39 Ct. No.28 S.Kundu C.R.M.(A) 1643 of 2025 Rejected In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In connection with Pursurah police station case no. 71 of 2024 dated 13.3.2024 under Section 135(1)(a) of Electricity Act, 2003. In the matter of: Dinabandhu Ghorui … Petitioner Ms. Sohini Adhikari Ms. Arpita Biswas …for the petitioner. Mr. Aniket Mitra …for the WBSEDCL. Ms. Baishali Basu Ms. Debjani Sahu …for the State. 1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner has not committed the offence as alleged. The lodge in question was closed at the relevant time. Although the petitioner had undertaken to pay 50% of the assessed amount by a particular date, he was unable to comply with the undertaking. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the WBSEDCL submits that no payment has been made by the petitioner. This is a case where the petitioner had consumed electricity by hooking. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State relies on the case diary and submits as follows. As per the statements of locals, the petitioner was running the Lodge cum 2 2 Restaurant at the relevant time and he had drawn electricity illegally. In fact, there is no meter in the said Lodge. All the electricity was drawn by hooking. Such hooking would, among other things, cause safety issues in the locality. 4. Considering the incriminating materials available in the case diary, I do not consider this to be a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 5. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Jay Sengupta, J.)