KHALID MEHMOOD GULZAR vs STATE and another
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Section 39-A of the Electricity Act and Section 462-L of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for alleged theft of electricity. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, including delay in FIR registration, payment of the disputed amount, and a pending civil suit regarding the disputed bill. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner had made out a case for pre-arrest bail, noting the delay in reporting, payment of the disputed amount, pending adjudication in a civil court, and the absence of misuse of interim bail. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds, establishing that malafide assertions coupled with deposit of disputed dues and delay in lodging the FIR warrant the extension of pre-arrest bail in electricity theft cases.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when an accused has deposited the disputed electricity amount and a civil suit is pending?
- Does a delay of four days in registering an FIR without plausible explanation justify granting pre-arrest bail?
- Whether the absence of misuse of interim pre-arrest bail is a relevant factor in confirming bail?
- Section 39-A, Electricity Act
- Section 462-L, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 424/2015 dated 9.9.2015, under Sections 39-A Electricity Ad read with Section 462-L, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Saddar, Dunya Pur District Lodhran,
2. Allegedly, the petitioner committed theft of electricity.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record it was observed that the petitioner was nominated in the F.I.R. Which was registered after four days without any plausible explanation: The disputed outstanding amount has been paid by the petitioner as revealed by a bill evidencing deposit of Rs. 87,142/-by the petitioner on 17.11.2015. Regarding the disputed bill a suit is also pending adjudication between the parties. Malafide is also asserted in the application and that there is not allegation of misuse of interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner, thus, I am k inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner.
4. For the reasons mentioned above, the application is accepted and I proceed to confirm the ad- interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.