Malik RASHID and another vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the proprietor and manager of a steel re-rolling mill, who were charged under sections 379, 420, 424, 431, and 435 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly stealing Sui gas by connecting an unauthorized underground pipe to the main supply line. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the nature of the offences and the argument that the raiding party, which included members of a 'Khidmat Committee,' lacked legal standing. The Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that while the grant of bail in petty offences is generally the rule, this principle does not apply when the accused is involved in the theft of public energy resources. The Court emphasized that stealing utility energy, such as Sui gas, constitutes a serious offence that poses significant hazards to public safety and depletes the national exchequer. Consequently, the Court determined that bail should not be readily granted in such cases to discourage the repetition of these crimes and to curb the growing culture of energy theft.
- Does the inclusion of members of a 'Khidmat Committee' in a raiding party invalidate the legality of the raid?
- Is the theft of utility energy, such as Sui gas, considered a petty offence for which bail should be granted as a rule?
- Should bail be denied in cases involving the theft of public energy resources to discourage repetition of the crime?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 424, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 431, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 435, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' A case under section 379/420/424/ 431/435, P.P.C. Is registered against the petitioners and others at Police Station Baghbanpura, Lahore vide F.I.R. No, 233 of 1999, dated 19-5-1999. Petitioner No,1 is the proprietor, whereas, petitioner No,2 is the manager of the steel re-rolling mills. They were stealing Sui gas by connecting an underground pipe with the main supply line passing from nearby distance. A raid was conducted by the Assistant Engineer Incharge of the area. He was accompanied by the Illaqa Magistrate, S.H.O., Police Station Baghbanpura and the members of the Khidmat Committee' named in the F.I.R. The petitioners were caught red-handed while using the stolen gas for operating their forge.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the members of the 'Khidmat Committee' had no locus standi to constitute the raiding party as the 'Khidmat Committees' are not Constitutional or legal entity in the eyes of law; that the petitioners are respectable persons and had never stolen the Sui gas to energize their forge which was being run by using furnace oil; that the offences were of petty nature and none of those was covered by the prohibitory clause so as to deny bail to the petitioners; and lastly it was contended that granting bail is a rule in such petty offences and refusal is an exception.
3. The bail was, however, opposed by the learned State Counsel on the ground that stealing gas energy and depriving national exchequer is becoming a fashion of the day and ought to be curbed with strong hand.
4. I have considered the foregoing facts and find that the F.I.R. Was got registered by the Assistant Engineer of the area of Sui Gas and it was found at the spot that the petitioners were energizing their forge by stealing Sui gas which was obtained by connecting an underground pipe with the main supply line without getting proper connection from the Sui Gas Authorities. The petitioners are not only involved in stealing the Sui gas energy to run their factory but also exposed the general public to the injurious hazard as the unauthorized connection could lead to exposition.
5. It may be noted with concern that an unfortunate tendency of stealing power energy is turning into an obnoxious culture of the day with the unscrupulous consumers. I am conscious of the fact that grant of bail in petty offences is a rule and refusal is an exception but in such-like cases of theft, the bail should not be readily granted to discourage the repetition of such crimes.
6. The petitioners have, therefore, no case for bail at this stage. The petition is accordingly dismissed.