RAHMAT ALI Versus STATE

ORDER

Anticipatory bail has been sought by the petitioner in the case registered against him under section 39‑A of the Electricity Act, 1910, read with section 379, P.P.C. The case was registered on the report of Mr. Sohail Tariq, S.D.O.

2. The background of registration of the case is that one Muhammad Amin was found using electricity by having got fixed an unauthorised meter without sanction of the proper authorities. On his being caught, he submitted an affidavit that the meter had been provided to him by the petitioner after charging a sum of Rs.700 as illegal gratification and that the petitioner had told him that it was a sanctioned one.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the State has conceded that except the affidavit submitted by Muhammad Amin, the Investigating Officer has not been liable to collect any other evidence in this regard.

4. In the circumstances the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that statement of an accomplice cannot be considered enough to ultimately base the conviction, bears force. The argument that the petitioner was being involved due to mala fides, also gains some support on account of the facts noted above.

5. This petition is, therefore, allowed. The interim pre‑arrest bail granted to the petitioner vide order, dated 27‑2‑1989 is confirmed. He shall, however, file fresh bail bonds and join the investigation as and when called.

M.Y.H./A‑723/L

Bail confirmed.