Syed SHAUKAT ALI GILANI and anothers vs THE STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioners, who were accused of electricity theft under the Electricity Act, 1910. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically the alleged delay in lodging the First Information Report (F.I.R.), the lack of evidence connecting the petitioners to the electricity meter in question, and the nature of the offence. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail, confirming the ad-interim bail previously granted. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the case against the petitioners appeared to be based on suspicion and presumption rather than concrete evidence. The Court established that where the prosecution case relies on witnesses who are all subordinates of the complainant, and where there is a significant unexplained delay in reporting, the case warrants further inquiry, thereby justifying the grant of pre-arrest bail.
- Does an offence under the Electricity Act 1910 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the prosecution case relies entirely on witnesses who are subordinates of the complainant?
- Is a case considered one of further inquiry when the F.I.R. is lodged with an unexplained delay and the evidence is based on suspicion?
- Section 39-A, Electricity Act 1910
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SARDAR MUHAMMAD SHAMIM KHAN, J.---Syed Shaukat Ali Gilani and Syed Qaswar Hussain Gilani, the petitioners have sought their pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,273 of 2010, dated 23-8-2010, registered against them under section 39-A of Electricity Act, 1910, at Police Station Dehli Gate, Multan.
2. This F.I.R. Was lodged on 23-8-2010 at the instance of S.D.O. Pak Gate Sub-Division MEPCO, Multan with regard to the alleged occurrence that took place on 20-8-2010 with the allegation that he along with meter checking team checked the Electricity Meter No,12-15133- 0748100 installed in the name of Rajab Ali Shah, which was under the use of the petitioners and noticed that petitioners had taken illegal supply of electricity through PVC wire fitted with main line and unit of electricity meters were seized and theft of electricity was being committed by them.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is extraordinary delay of three days in lodging of F.I.R. Without any plausible explanation; that the said electricity meter is in the name of Rajab Ali Shah and there is no evidence on the record that said meter is being used by the petitioners. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no body witnessed that the petitioners had fitted PVC wire with the main line and were getting direct supply of electricity by seizing the units of electricity meter and were committing theft of electricity; that case against the petitioners has been registered merely on the basis of suspicion and presumptions and mala fides; that all the witnesses are the employees of MEPCO department and no person from the locality has been cited as witness; that there is not a single iota of evidence against the petitioners connecting them with the commission of alleged offence and that maximum punishment for the alleged offence is only three years which do not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause, so, he has prayed for grant of pre-arrest to the petitioners.
4. Learned D.P.-G. Has contended that both petitioners are nominated in the F.I.R. And there is specific allegation against them that they were getting direct supply of electricity illegally by fitting PVC wire with the main line, so they are not entitled to the grant of extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail.
5. I have heard the arguments advance by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The case against the petitioners was registered after the delay of three days for which no explanation has been given in the F.I.R. The alleged electricity meter from where the petitioners were allegedly getting the direct supply of electricity illegally through PVC wire is not installed in the name of the petitioners rather it is in the name of one Rajab Ali Shah. There is no evidence on the record that the aforementioned meter was under the use of the petitioners. No body has seen the petitioners that they had fitted PVC wire with main line for A getting direct supply and had seized the unit of meter. All the P.Ws. Mentioned in the F.LR. Are sub-ordinate to the complainant and no person from the vicinity was joined at the time of raid/inspection. The offence alleged against the petitioners do not fall within the purview of prohibitory clause of section 497 of Cr.P.C. The involvement of the petitioners due to suspicion/presumptions and mala fides can not be ruled out, in the given circumstances. In such situation, the case of the petitioners comes within the purview of further inquiry.
7. Resultantly, petition in hand is accepted and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted in favour of the petitioners is confirmed subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Pre-arrest .