30 lakh bail for 3 more accused in Jalna power theft case

Moreover, the matter is for grant of anticipatory bail and not recovery or civil in nature. Hence, such a condition is not desirable, he argued before Justice R G Deshpande.

The three accused – Shantilal Pitty, Badrivishal Pitty and Tarabai Pitty, all directors of SRJ Steel and Alloys Pvt Ltd, have been accused of power theft amounting to Rs 2.91 crore.

Talekar first claimed his clients had notindulged in any power theft at all. In fact, SRJ Steels is one of the oldest of all the mini-steel plants in Jalna and has consistently been the highest revenue payer to the MSEB in its category all over Maharashtra since the last several years, Talekar claimed.

A casual glance at the revenue paid by plant would show that revenue had gradually increased from Rs 82 lakh per month to Rs 97 lakh per month. The corresponding figures for excise duties range from Rs 17 lakh to Rs 20 lakh while average sales tax paid by the plant is Rs 4.7 lakh, the counsel said. He maintained that these characteristics cannot in any way suggest that the plant had indulged in power theft.

Also, he pointed out, MSEB have not been able to prove any line losses (difference between power supplied to the plant from the MSEB sub-station and that registered at the check meter installed in the plant premises), Talekar pointed out.

Moreover, no case has been made out against the accused to show that they had indulged in tampering ofthe meter. In fact, reading the First Information Report almost makes it clear that no case of theft is evident, he argued. Also, since power theft can easily be detected by the MSEB’s sophisticated computers, which store power supply data up to even 20 years, it indicates that the accused is innocent, he maintained.

In an emotional appeal to the court, Talekar said the price the accused have paid by way of damage to their reputation built over a period of decades through sheer dint of hard work, is ample punishment. Such damage, caused by the unfounded allegations of the MSEB, could now not be undone, he argued.

He said his clients are not in a position to pay the bail deposit the court had fixed. However, this cannot be ground to refuse their plea, Talekar argued.

Citing the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Keshabnarayan vs State of Bihar case, he said the apex court had disapproved of this kind of approach for grant of bail.