IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI
Crl. Bail Appln. No. S 1068 of 2018
Haider Zaman
..
Applicant
Versus
The State
..
Respondent
Date of hearing & Short Order : 26.09.2018
Malik
Khushhal Khan, advocate for applicant
Mr.
M. B. Shakeel, advocate for complainant
Mr.
Sagheer Abbasi, APG for State
O
R D E R
Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui, J: The
applicant above named succeeded in getting interim pre-arrest bail vide Order
date 06-08-2018 in a case initiated out of FIR No. 264/2018 u/s 147, 148, 504, 506,
337-A (1) PPC at PS Boat Basin.
2.
I have heard the arguments advanced
from either side and perused record produced before me. After edifying myself
from the arguments advanced and perusal of record, I have observed as under:
(a)
The applicant is the employ
of K-electric and the allegation against him is that he along with his
subordinates came to the house of the complainant and abruptly disconnected the
electricity. At that time the aged father of complainant was exercising on
treadmill and due to federal stoppage of treadmill, his father fallen down and
receive fewer injuries.
(b)
It
is alleged by the complainant that the power was disconnected on the charge of
non-payment of electricity dues but the fact is that the dues were paid and in
spite of payment of dues, the electricity was disconnected.
(c)
It
is alleged that the father of the complainant is more than 70 years old and at
the time of disconnection, he was exercising on a treadmill. The fact requires
evidence besides it is the precautions of using treadmill that the children and
people of extreme old age should not use the same without an attendant.
(d)
The
contention of the applicant that he had paid electricity bill requires further
probe as the date of payment of the bill and the date of incident are the same;
in such a situation the contention of the applicant that the bill was paid
after the incident requires consideration.
(e)
Another
aspect is important, which pertains to criminal intent and from the peculiar
circumstances of the case it appears that there was no criminal intention of
the applicant to cause injuries to the father of complainant, as such it is for
the prosecution to establish that there was a mens rea on the part of the
applicant, which requires evidence.
3.
In
the above circumstances, I am of the view that a case of pre-arrest bail has
been made out, as such the applicant is entitled for relief claimed by him.
4.
In the light of the above observations, the pre-arrest bail
granted to the applicant is confirmed on the same terms and condition.
J U D G E