ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No. 1336 of 2016
Applicant: Muhammad Yousuf s/o. Ibne-e-Hassan,
Through Mr. Ghulam Muhammad Khan Jadoon,
Advocate.
Respondent: The State, through Mr. Malik Sadaqat Khan, Special
Prosecutor SSGC.
---------
Criminal Bail Application No. 1590 of 2016
Applicant: Muhammad Iqbal s/o. Jaffar Khan,
Through Mr. Amanullah Shaikh, Advocate.
Respondent: The State, through Mr. Malik Sadaqat Khan, Special
Prosecutor SSGC.
Date of hearing: 16.02.2017
Date of order: 16.02.2017
-----------------
O R D E R
Zafar Ahmed Rajput, J:- By this common order, I intend to dispose of both above listed bail applications, as the same have arisen out of F.I.R. No. 52 of 2016, registered at PS SSGC, Karachi, under Section 462(A-h) C/E/34 P.P.C.
2. Through Criminal Bail Application No. 1336/2016, the applicant/accused Muhammad Yousuf s/o. Ibne-e-Hassan has sought pre-arrest arrest bail in aforementioned crime. His earlier application for grant of pre-arrest bail bearing No. 1316 of 2016 was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Karachi-West, vide order dated 10.09.2016. He was granted ad-interim pre-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 16.09.2016, now he seeks confirmation of his bail. While, through Criminal Bail Application No. 1590 of 2016, the applicant/accused Muhammad Iqbal s/o. Jaffar Khan seeks post-arrest bail in aforementioned crime. His earlier application for grant of post-arrest bail bearing No. 801 of 2016 was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Karachi-West, vide order dated 10.09.2016.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 30.03.2016 at 1605 hours complainant Fazal-ur-Rehman s/o. Abdul Hannan lodged aforementioned F.I.R. alleging therein that he was posted as Deputy Manager in SSGC, on 25/26-03-2016 at 2100 hours to 0200 hours he alongwith other officials of Sui-Gas and police party of PS SSGC reached Plot No.2/A, Gulfamabad, Orangi Town, Karachi, where they noted that one factory i.e. “Saiban God Rusk” was running. They also found one house owned by co-accused Rahim Khan near the said factory, where they noted that service line of SSGC was available from down side of SSGC meter and one iron pipe “T” shape was connected with main line and through a rubber pipe gas was being stolen and used by the said factory. The complainant with the help of sui-gas officials disconnected the same and taken the rubber pipe, iron pipe “U” shape, iron “T” shape nozzle and two small size gas stove in their possession. On enquiry, it came to know that applicant/accused Muhammad Iqbal by showing him as Deputy Contractor of SSGC was supplying gas illegally to the said factory and receiving amount on monthly basis from accused Muhammad Yousuf, owner of the said factory. It is further alleged that complainant party made search for said Iqbal, but could not locate him; therefore, submitted report to higher officers and after their permission on 30.003.2016 the instant F.I.R. was lodged.
4. The learned counsel for the applicants/accused Muhammad Yousuf has mainly contended that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant party due to malice and ulterior motive in order to save actual culprit, who has been let off after getting illegal gratification; that the applicant was an employee in the said factory and he is not owner of the same; that the place of occurrence belongs to one Naba-ul-Hassan Jafri; that there is an inordinate delay of 4/5 days in lodging the FIR for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant; that no incriminating material has been recovered from present accused, that the alleged offence does not fall with the prohibitory clause; that instant case is a fit case for further enquiry, that the applicant has been attending the trial court regularly and has not misused the concession of interim bail; thus, he is entitled for confirmation of the of bail.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant/accused Muhammad Iqbal, while adopting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for applicant/accused Muhammad Yousuf has further contended that the applicant was arrested on 18.04.2016 and since then he is in judicial custody; that after completion of investigation challan has been submitted by the police and accused is no more required for further investigation; that the said accused has nothing to do with any such act as he is neither owner nor concerned with the alleged factory; the alleged offence is punishable up to 10 years and not less than 5 years; as such, he is entitled for the bail coupled with the fact that he is behind the bars since 18.04.2016. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has placed his reliance on the cases of Dr. Muhammad Riaz Akhtar alias Dr. Shahid vs. The State and another (2012 SCMR 1685) and Muhammad Amin vs. The State (SBLR 2016 Sindh 1619).
6. On the other hand, learned Special Prosecutor SSGC has vehemently opposed this application on the ground that the accused are involved in an offence of causing huge loss to government exchequer; therefore, they are not entitled for the concession of bail.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants/accused and learned Special Prosecutor SSGC as well as perused the material available on record.
8. Applicant/accused Muhammad Iqbal is confined in judicial custody since 18.04.2016. Police submitted the challan against the accused persons. The witnesses cited in the challan are either employees of SSGC or police department; hence, there is no apprehension of tampering with the prosecution evidence, as the material has already been collected by the investigating officer. The alleged offence under Section 462(A-h)(C/E) is punishable up to ten years and not less than five years with fine to the extent of Rs. 3 Million. It is well settled that while examining the question of bail, Court has to consider the minimum aspect of the sentence provided for the alleged offence. From the tentative assessment of the evidence in the hand of prosecution, it appears that there is hearsay evidence against the accused Muhammad Iqabl, while it is yet to be determined if accused Muhammad Yousuf is the owner of the subject plot / factory, which is possible only after recording of the evidence by the trial Court; hence, it is a fit case of further enquiry.
9. For the forgoing facts and reasons applicant/accused Muhammad Iqbal is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, while the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant/accused Muhammad Yousuf vide order dated 16.09.2016 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
10. Needless to mention here that if applicants in any manner try to misuse the concession of bail, it would be open for the trial Court to cancel their bail after issuing them the requisite notice.
JUDGE
Athar Zai