SOHAIL IQBAL vs STATE and another
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 280/2018, registered under Section 39-A of the Electricity Act, 1910, for the alleged theft of electricity. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, including the payment of the outstanding dues. Upon review, the Court observed that the F.I.R. lacked a specified time of occurrence and that the petitioner had already paid the outstanding electricity bills, thereby causing no loss to the exchequer. Furthermore, the Court noted that the offense under Section 39-A carries a maximum punishment of three years and is considered bailable. Since no recovery was required from the petitioner, the Court held that incarceration would serve no useful purpose and would be counterproductive to the administration of justice. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that sending the accused to jail under these circumstances would be unnecessary. The principle established is that where the alleged loss to the exchequer has been satisfied and the offense is bailable, pre-arrest bail should be confirmed.
- Is an offense under Section 39-A of the Electricity Act 1910 considered bailable?
- Does the payment of outstanding electricity bills constitute a valid ground for confirming pre-arrest bail in a theft of electricity case?
- Section 39-A, Electricity Act 1910
ORDER
Sohail Iqbal, petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 280/2018 dated 11.07.2018, under Section 39-A of the Electricity Act, 1910, registered at Police Station F.I.A./C.C.,Multan.
2. Allegedly, the petitioner committed theft of electricity.
3. Having heard the arguments addressed at the bar and after perusing the record, it was noticed that no time of occurrence find mentioned in the F.I.R. The outstanding bill of Rs,80,000/- have been paid by the petitioner in the month of August, 2018 and November 2018. A Photostat copy of the provisional bill dispatched to the petitioner by MAPCO is appended with the file as Annexure-C evidencing payment of Rs,40,000/- and the original copy of the bill for the month of October 2018 was produced before the Court which reflects the payment of Rs,42,435/ - with Post Office, Gulgasht Colony, Multan. In the circumstances, no loss is caused to the exchequer. Even otherwise, the punishment prescribed under Section 39-A is three years and would be deemed as bailable in view of law laid down in the case of "Anjum Sheraz v. The State" (NLR 1999 Criminal 1). No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner, thus, sending the petitioner behind the bars, at this stage, would not serve any purpose to the prosecution and this would be a colour of ludicrousness if he is sent to jail for some time by dismissing the instant application so as to enable him to come out of jail on post arrest bail. He has successfully made out a case for confirmation of his ad-interim pre-arrest bail.
4. For the reasons mentioned above, the application is accepted and ad-interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/duty judge.