Shah Mehran vs The State
This is a criminal bail application before the Sindh High Court where the applicant sought confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of electricity theft and snatching wires from HESCO officials. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the confirmation of bail when the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and further inquiry was warranted. The court held that since the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail was the rule and refusal the exception, and the conflicting versions of the incident required further probe at trial. The court confirmed the interim bail on the same terms and conditions, directed the trial to conclude within forty-five working days, and established the principle that for non-prohibitory offences where guilt requires further inquiry, bail should be confirmed as a matter of rule.
- Whether bail should be granted when the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be confirmed when the case involves conflicting allegations requiring further inquiry at trial?
- Is a trial court competent to cancel bail if the accused misuses the concession of bail?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, J. The applicant/accused is present on bail granted to him by this Court vide order dated 14.05.2020. Today , this bail application is fixed for confirmation or otherwise.
2. The allegation against the applicant/accused is that he allegedly involved in theft of electricity and at the time of incident he allegedly snatched wires from HESCO of ficials, who were present at the time of incident.
3. It is an admitted fact that case has been challaned and present applicant/accused is no more required for investigation. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been involved in this case by police malafidely just to humiliate him.
4. On perusal of case file, it is noted that the offences in which the applicant/accused is booked either bailable or their punishment do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C, therefore, under these circumstances grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. No cogent ground appears in this case to withhold bail of the applicant. Besides this, there is words against words with regard to happening of the incident, therefore, it is yet to be determined at the time of trial, whether the applicant is involved in this case or otherwise till then the case of the applicant requires further probe.
5. In view of above, the interim order already passed by this Court stands confirmed on same terms and conditions with directions to the applicant to appear before Trial Court to face trial.
6. Needless to mention here that any observation in this order is tentative in nature and shall not effect the merits of the case.
7. Before parting with this order , I would like to make it clear that in case during proceedings if, the applicant misuses the concession of bail, then presiding officer of the Trial Court would be competent to cancel his bail without making any reference to this Court.
8. Since, it is case of alleged theft of electricity , therefore, Trial Court is directed to conclude the Trial within forty five
(45) working days with further directions that no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to either side and compliance report be submitted to this Court through Additional Registrar of this Court for perusal. Office is directed to immediately send copy of this Order to the learned Trial Court for information and compliance.