P&H: Grants Bail To Accused for Theft of Transformer; Reiterates Bail Is The Rule And Right To Speedy Trial

punjab-haryana
⚖️ Order Date: 13 May 2026
Headnotes

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S.483, Electricity Act, 2003, S.136 — Bail — Theft of transformer - Court notes custody of five months and twenty days, maximum punishment up to three years, investigation complete with nothing left to be recovered, trial not likely to conclude soon, detention serving no...

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S.483 — Bail - Pre-trial custody not necessary — Nothing on record to show that while on bail petitioner is likely to tamper with evidence, influence witnesses or not participate in trial and his continued judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any...

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S.483, Electricity Act, 2003, S.136 - Bail - Theft of transformer  — For alleged transformer theft causing departmental loss, Court factors in that the offence carries a maximum of three years and investigation stands complete with nothing to be recovered, supporting release on...

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S.483 — Bail granted with conditions — Release directed on personal and surety bonds to satisfaction of trial Court subject to conditions not to induce, threaten or promise to any witness, to furnish and update address, and not to leave India...


Facts of the Case

P&H: Grants Bail To Accused for Theft of Transformer; Reiterates Bail Is The Rule And Right To Speedy Trial

 

High Court has granted regular bail to accused in an FIR alleging theft of an electricity transformer u/s 136 of the Electricity Act, Court allowed the petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), noting that the maximum punishment is up to three years and that continued custody was not warranted.

The prosecution case originated from a complaint alleging transformer theft causing a loss of Rs. 45,753.99. The State opposed bail, arguing the petitioner is a habitual offender with similar cases and one Arms Act case pending. The defence highlighted that the petitioner had been in custody for five months and twenty days, investigation was complete, and nothing was left to be recovered.

The Court identified key factors in favour of bail: the limited sentence exposure, completion of investigation, the unlikelihood of an early conclusion of trial, and the lack of material suggesting the petitioner would tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, or...

Login required to open full judgment PDF
Login to Access File