IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Crl. Bail  Application No. S- 576 of 2023.

Applicant              :  Imtiaz Ali Chano present in person (on bail).

Respondent           :  The State, through Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro,

                                Additional Prosecutor General.

Complainant         :  Through Mr. Asif Hussain Chandio, Advocate.

Date of hearing     :  07.12.2023.

Date of Order        :  07.12.2023.

O R D E R

Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J.- After rejection of pre-arrest bail application by the trial Court/2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kamber by means of order dated 27.9.2023 in the FIR bearing Crime No.329/2023, registered at P.S Kamber City, for offence under Sections 462-I, PPC., the applicant has approached this Court with same plea.  

            2.         According to the case of prosecution, on 15.09.2023, during checking of electricity connection by complainant/SDO SEPCO Warah Sub-Division and his staff, they allegedly found the applicant and others committing theft of electricity through direct(Kunda) connections.   

            3.         The applicant present in person submits that he is lawful consumer of SEPCO and that the complainant in fact had demanded bribe money from him, on his refusal he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that no any Kunda connection was found at his house. 

            4.         Learned Addl. P.G. for the State, does not oppose the bail application, on the ground that the alleged offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.

            5.         Learned Counsel for the complainant opposes the bail application, on the ground that the applicant is not only defaulter of SEPCO, but was found committing theft of electricity by installing direct/Kunda connection, thereby causing loss to the exchequer; hence he is not entitled to bail.

            6.         Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

            7.         Admittedly, the incident took place in daytime i.e. at 12.00 noon in Kamber City, where availability of other persons of the locality cannot be denied, yet no independent person from the vicinity has been cited as witness of the alleged occurrence. Section 462-I, PPC carries punishment upto 03 years and fine; as such, the offence does not exceed the limits of prohibition contained in Section 497, Cr.P.C and in such eventuality the superior Courts have extended grace by admitting the petitioners on bail by holding that where the offence does not fall under the prohibitory clause, grant of bail in such cases becomes a rule and refusal will be an exception. The case has been challaned and after grant of ad-interim pre-arrest bail the applicant is not alleged to have misused such concession. The case against the applicant, in absence of any independent witness of the alleged incident, requires further enquiry as contemplated under sub-section (2) to Section 497, Cr.P.C. In the case of Muhammad Tanveer v. The State (PLD 2017 Supreme Court 733) the Apex Court while extending the grace, granted bail and it will be appropriate to reproduce para-6 of the order, which reads as under:-

“6.       We are shocked and disturbed to observe that in cases of this nature, not falling within the prohibition contained in section 497, Cr.P.C., invariably grant of bail is refused on flimsy grounds. This practice should come to an end because the public, particularly accused persons charged for such offences are unnecessarily burdened with extra expenditure and this Court is heavily taxed because leave petitions in hundreds are piling up in this Court and the diary of the Court is congested with such like petitions. This phenomenon is growing tremendously, thus, cannot be lightly ignored as precious time of the Court is wasted in disposal of such petitions.  This Court is purely a constitutional Court to deal with intricate questions of law and Constitution and to lay down guiding principle for the Courts of the country where law points require interpretation.”

            8.         In such circumstances and in view of above discussion as well as the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the reported case of Muhammad Tanveer (supra), I am convinced that the applicant has made out prima facie case for grant of pre-arrest bail. 

            9.         In the light of above discussion, instant bail application is allowed. Interim pre-arrest bail granted earlier to applicant is confirmed on same terms and conditions.

                                                                                                JUDGE