HAKIM ALI vs The STATE and others
This matter arises from a petition filed by Hakim Ali seeking pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 152 registered under section 462-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Ahmad Yar, Pakpattan, concerning the theft of electricity. The core legal question is whether the deposit of a detection bill by an accused charged with electricity theft constitutes a sufficient ground for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court held that the mere deposit of a detection bill, even if paid in full, does not furnish a valid ground for granting pre-arrest bail for the theft of national resources, particularly when the petitioner fails to establish mala fide or malice on the part of the complainant department or the police. The court laid down the principle that granting pre-arrest bail under such circumstances would encourage offenders to evade accountability, and consequently, the petition for pre-arrest bail was dismissed and the interim pre-arrest bail was recalled.
- Does the payment of a detection bill constitute a valid ground for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail in cases of electricity theft?
- Is proof of mala fide or malice on the part of the complainant department or police a prerequisite for the grant of pre-arrest bail under section 462-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 462-J, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, J.---Petitioner Hakim Ali seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No,152 dated 13.05.2016 under section 462-J, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Ahmad Yar, Pakpattan.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. Petitioner is nominated in the FIR with the specific allegation of committing theft of electricity by establishing a direct connection with the main L.T. line that finds support from the statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. of witnesses Talib Hussain, Lineman-II and Ali Raza, Assistant Lineman.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stressed a lot on the sole argument that the petitioner has already paid the whole amount of detection bin calculated against him by the complainant department. Learned counsel for the complainant department informs that only a little amount has been deposited by the petitioner and a huge amount is still outstanding against him. I am of the considered view that mere deposit of even whole detection bill after registration of a criminal case against an accused for theft of national resources cannot be considered a valid ground for confirmation of his pre-arrest bail. Needless to add that such an argument in favour of an accused for grant of extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail can definitely encourage thieves of national resources to save their skin only by deposit of an amount in the garb of detection bill manipulated after disclosure of their crime. Offence under section 462-J is non-bailable and besides the punishment of two years imprisonment, fine of Rupees one million is also provided. Learned counsel for the petitioner remained unable to establish any mala fide or malice on the part of the complainant department or of the police for false implication of the petitioner in this case that is sine qua non for the grant of pre-arrest bail. In such like cases, a very serious notice has already been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Sana Ullah v. State" (2016 SCM R 1527).
In view of all above, no case for bail before arrest is made out and this bail petition being devoid of any force is dismissed. The ad interim pre arrest bail granted to the petitioner on 07.10.2016 is recalled.
5. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.