MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH vs The STATE

ORDER

AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---Applicant Muhammad Abdullah son of Muhammad Shahid Khan, sought for post arrest bail in crime No,28 of 2017, Police Station SSGC Karachi, registered under sections 15-34 Pakistan Penal Code/Gas Theft Control and Recovery Act, 2016. Earier the bail plea of the applicant was declined by the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi (West), vide order dated 23- 06-2017.

2. Facts stated in the First Information Report are that on the eventful day applicant was found committing theft of SSGC by using Service/Auxiliary Line through plastic pipeline for his hotel running under the name and style of "Piyala Hotel and Delhi Pakwan Centre" by installation of 3 KVA Generator and machines were running over there; same was disconnected and taken into possession viz. two stoves of 24 Nozzles, one 3-KVA Generator, 10 feet rubber pipe however 11 stoves of 32 Nozzles and preparation of Nimko through machine, whereby applicant put in loss to the Sui Southern Gas Company.

3. Mrs. Azra Hammad, advocate, representing the applicant contended that applicant is quite innocent and has been implicated with mala fide intention and ulterior motives; per learned counsel applicant is owner of said Pakwan House and the Nimko Centre but neither there is gas meter installed nor any meter is registered in the name of applicant; per learned counsel nothing incriminating articles have been recovered from the possession of applicant; per learned counsel the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; per learned counsel no independent witness has been associated to act as mashir; per learned counsel investigation has been completed and challan has been submitted therefore applicant is no more required for further investigation purposes; per learned counsel the only name of applicant is not sufficient in the FIR until and unless his guilt is proved; per learned counsel applicant is neither previous convict nor involved any alike criminal case and -there is no apprehension of tampering with the prosecution evidence; lastly she argued that accused admitted to bail mainly on the ground that as per Section 6 of the Act, a direct complaint was to be filed or suit for recovery filed before the competent court of law; per learned counsel the applicant may be enlarged on post-arrest bail.

4. Malik Sadaqat Ali, Special Public Prosecutor representing SSGC opposed the grant of post arrest bail plea of the applicant; per learned SPP the applicant has been found in committing theft of SSGC by using Service/Auxiliary Line through rubber pipe and had put the SSGC over huge losses; per learned SPP there is sufficient material available with the prosecution which prima facie implicate the applicant with the commission of alleged offence; per learned SPP it had went proved that applicant was not holding any valid meter for consumption of SSGC but was its consumption through rubber pipeline from Auxiliary Line; per learned SPP series of utility items have been recovered from the venue of occurrence and if there was no consumption or theft of any SSGC than why applicant had installed heavy stoves of 24 Nozzles, 3-KVA Generator, 10 feet rubber pipe however 11 stoves of 32 Nozzles and preparation of Nimko through machine, whereby applicant put in loss to the Sui Southern Gas Company.

5. Heard and perused.

6. Admittedly, it has been surfaced on record that once applicant admitted before the court below that applicant is proprietor of hotel running under the name and style of "Piyala Hotel and Delhi Pakwan Centre" and there is no gas Connection or meter is installed; when team of SSGC arrived whom found generator was running through sui gas being steal; once applicant admitted his guilt/liability whereby learned SPP was made query about said proposition who submitted that it provisional claim is adjusted which is amounting to Rs,41,37,200/= therefore learned SPP would record no objection to the grant of post arrest bail, on the contrary learned counsel for the applicant requests the matter may be decided on its merits because of huge amounts. After evaluating this proposition tendered before the learned trial Court by the applicant and its denial by learned counsel for the applicant gives presumption that applicant was rightly using/stealing sui gas by using rubber pipeline through Service/Auxiliary Line; the fact of theft went unshaken.

Secondly, on merits as to the contention of learned counsel that nothing has been recovered from the scene of occurrence; on the contrary recovered articles from Piyala Hotel and Delhi Pakwan Centre is two stoves of 24 Nozzles, one 3-KVA Generator, 10 feet rubber pipe however 11 stoves of 32 Nozzles and preparation of Nimko through machine has been recovered from the venue of occurrence, However; in such case, the dispute was regarding billing or metering against a Gas Utility by holding that where a person is involved in an offence of this Act, a Direct Complaint was to be filed, however in such case, the dispute was regarding billing or metering against a Gas Utility Company, as the case may be, may file a complaint or suit, but in the instant case, there is no dispute regarding billing or metering against a Gas Utility and admittedly theft was committed from the service/Auxiliary Line for commercial purposes, besides, section 17 of the Act would be applicable. All these aspects of the case lead to a conclusion that theft was being done at venue of occurrence and recovery is unshaken therefore it went proved that applicant has been rightly booked in the present case as such there is no mala fide or enmity shown against the complainant or Investigation Officer of the case; therefore under these circumstances I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

7. As discussed supra, the post arrest bail plea of the applicant is therefore dismissed.