ABDUL LATIF Versus State

ORDER

ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, J.--- Urgency granted.

2. Applicant/accused seeks post arrest bail Crime No. 15/2015, registered under section 462-C/34, P.P.C. at P.S. SSGC Karachi.

3. Applicant had applied for post arrest bail before the learned trial Court, but the same was rejected vide order dated 27-8-2015, hence this bail application.

4. The allegation against applicant/accused is that on 7-8-2015 when complainant Abdul Rasheed, Deputy Manager, Sui Southern Gas Company Karachi along with his sub-ordinate were on patrolling duty for checking in the area to eliminate the gas theft and at about 1800 hours when they reached village Dur Muhammad Goth, Taluka Haidery, the present applicant was found busy in tampering with gas pipe line connection and was supplying gas illegally to the co-villagers, hence arrested and during search one piece of gas pipe with nozzle was recovered.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated in this case due to enmity with the complainant party and according to him no incident as alleged has been taken place. He further contended that there is no independent evidence on record to show that the applicant was tampering with gas pipe line and supplying the same to the co-villagers; that the recovery mashirs Abdul Basit and Kanwar Farhat Ali, Assistant Managers of SSGC are the sub-ordinate of the complainant; no independent witness from the locality has been cited as mashir of the event, therefore according to him false implication of the accused in this case cannot be ruled out. He further submitted that the offence under which the present applicant has been challaned carries punishment not less than 5 years and upto 10 years, hence according to him lesser sentence to be considered by the Court while considering the bail application.

6. Conversely learned A.P.G. has opposed this bail application on the ground that applicant is involved in gas theft in the area and apprehended on the spot in presence of mashirs Abdul Basit and Kanwar Farhat Ali, Assistant Managers of SSGC respectively who have no inimical terms with the applicant.

7. Arguments heard and record perused.

8. It is an admitted position that the case has been challaned. Applicant is no more required for investigation. The whole case of the prosecution rests upon the evidence of complainant Abdul Rasheed, Deputy Manager Sui Southern Gas Company as well as Abdul Basit and Kanwar Farhat Ali, Assistant Managers of SSGC respectively, therefore, there is no apprehension of tampering of the prosecution evidence by the applicant. There is nothing on record to show that applicant is previous convict or has been arrested in a case of similar nature in past. It is an admitted fact that the recovery mashirs are sub-ordinate of the complainant, therefore their evidence require deeply scrutinized at the time of trial. The incident was taken place on 7.8.2015 at about 1800 hours in the evening time in village Dur Muhammad Goth, Taluka Haidery which is a thickly populated area despite of this fact the complainant has not made any efforts to associate/join any private person of the locality to witness the event. No specific names on record to whom the applicant was supplying the illegal gas/connection. No villager of Dur Muhammad Goth has been cited as a witness. All these facts require evidence at the time of trial till then case of applicant requires further probe.

9. Undisputedly, section of law leveled in FIR provide two alternate punishments of imprisonment not less than 5 years and upto 10 years, if offence is proved. In such like cases it has been consistent practice of this Court to allow bail on principle that when Statutes provide two punishments then for the purpose of bail, the lesser one would be considered. In this respect I am supported with case of Shahzore and others v. The State reported in 2006 YLR 3167, Muhammad Sharif v. The State and others reported in 2014 Pakistan Cr. Law Journal page 297, Arshad Mehmood v. The State 1985 Pakistan Cr. Law Journal 2048 and Muhammad Akhtar v. The State 1994 Pakistan Cr. Law Journal page 2340.

10. In view of the above facts and circumstances the applicant has made out a case for his grant of bail. I accordingly admit the applicant on bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.300,000/- (Rupees three lacs only) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

11. Before parting with the order I would like to make it clear that any observation in this order is tentative in nature and shall not affect the merit of the case.

YN/A-78/Sindh Bail granted.