Muhammad Afzal vs The State and another

ORDER

MALIK SHAHZAD AHMAD KHAN, J.---The petitioner , namely Muhammad Afzal, though the instant petition seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No.C/52/2020, dated 01.06.2020, registered at P.S FIA Sargodha District Sargodha offences under Sections 462-K/H/I, 506/186/109/34, P .P.C. and 5(2)47, PCA.

2. Heard.

3. This is third post arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner before this Court. First bail application of the petitioner was disposed of vide order , dated 03.06.2020, on the ground that the investigation stood transferred to the FIA authorities, therefore, the petitioner should first file post-arrest bail petition before the Special Court (Central), Faisalabad. Second post arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner before this Court bearing Crl. Misc. No.39840-B of 2020 was dismissed as having been withdrawn at the very outset vide order , dated 22.09.2020. The instant third petition has been filed before this Court on the ground that the complainant has made a statement before FIA authorities that he was not present at the spot at the time of occurrence. No applic ation for grant of post-arrest bail on the above mentioned fresh ground has been moved by the petitioner before the Court of first instance after dismissal of his second post arrest bail petition by this Court on 22.09.2020. Even otherwise there are also other prosecution witnesses, namely Ghulam Ahmad, Ziaullah Khan, Ali Abbas and Saleem apart from the complainant, therefore, mere obliging statement of one prosecution witness is of no avail to the petitioner . Even otherwise learned counsel for the petitioner has not placed on the record any statement of the complainant wherein he stated that he was not present at the spot at the time of occurrence. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused was caught red handed while committing theft of electricity for the cotton factory situated at Musa Wali Piplan District Mianwali. Although the offences mentioned in the FIR do not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. but it is by now well settled that an accused cannot claim bail as a matter of right if his case does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Reliance in this respect may be placed on the cases of "Muhammad Siddique v. Imtiaz Begum and 02 others " (2002 SCMR 442) and "Haji Muhammad Nazir and others v.The State " (2008 SCMR 807). It is also by now well settled that even in the cases which do not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. the concession of bail may be declined to an accused if his case falls under exceptional circumstances. In the instant case, the petitioner along with his co-accused committed theft of electricity and as such he along with his co-accused caused colossal loss to the Govt. exchequer . The complainant also alleged that when he along with the other staff of FESCO Sub Division Liaquatabad tried to remove the electrici ty meter , the petitioner and his co-accused started quarreling with them and also gave them abuses, as well as, threats. The case of petitioner , therefore, falls under exceptional circumstances. Under the circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner , therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed in limine .