IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Cr. Bail
Application No.2845 of 2024
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
orders on M.A. No.16756/2024
For
hearing of bail application
---------------------------------------------
02.05.2025
Mr. Waqar Alam Abbasi, advocate for
applicant
Ms. Seema Zaidi, Additional
Prosecutor General Sindh.
------------------------------
Shamsuddin Abbasi,
J.—Applicant Sahibzada Fareed
Ahmed seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No.360/2023, registered at P.S. Rizvia Society
Karachi for offence under Section 462-K of the Electricity Act, 1910, after
rejection of his bail plea by learned III Additional District and Sessions
Judge Karachi Central vide order dated 02.12.2024.
2. Brief
facts of the case are that on 12.09.2023, complainant lodged FIR, alleging
therein that applicant Sahibzada Fareed Ahmed has affixed Kundha in Electricity Meter No.LC-616638, Account No.400036025288,
installed outside House No.KE-JB-2604, Jalalabad, Nazirmabad No.1, Karachi, and
is using theft electricity whereby causing irreparable loss to K-Electric.
3. Learned
counsel for applicant submits that K-Electric has already filed Direct
Complaint on the same issue, which is pending before learned III Additional
Sessions Judge, Karachi Central and has placed on record copy of order dated
15.06.2023 passed in the said complaint. He further submits that allegation
leveled against the applicant requires further inquiry in terms of section
497(2), Cr.PC and that the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory
clause of Section 497, Cr.PC.
4. On
07.02.2025, representative of K-Electric effected appearance and sought time to
engage a counsel, thereafter, he never appeared, which shows that complainant
is reluctant to pursue its case. However, learned Additional Prosecutor General
Sindh has opposed for grant of bail on the ground that applicant is nominated
in the FIR.
5. Heard
learned counsel for applicant as well as learned Additional Prosecutor General
Sindh and perused the material available on record.
6. From
tentative assessment of material available on record it appears that the
alleged offence does not fall with the ambit of prohibitory clause of section
497, Cr.PC and in such like cases, rule is grant of bail and its refusal is an
exception. Reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Tanveer versus State (PLD
2017 SC 733). Moreover, Moreover, counsel for applicant has filed copy of order
dated 15.06.2023 passed by learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi in
Direct Complaint No.Nil/2023 filed by K-Electric (Pvt.) Limited against the
present applicant/accused and according to him it is still pending adjudication
and the present FIR is an outcome of the said Director Complaint, therefore,
the case of applicant/accused requires further inquiry in terms of Section
497(2), Cr.PC. Therefore, interim pre-arrest granted to applicant above named by
this Court vide order dated 05.12.2024 is hereby confirmed on the same terms
and conditions.
7. Instant
criminal bail applications are disposed of in the above terms.
J
U D G E
Gulsher/PS