IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No.2423 of 2025
[ Abdul Wahab versus The State ]
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
hearing of bail application
--------------------------------------------
10.03.2026
Mr.
Azam Khan, advocate a/w applicant
Mr.
Sharafuddin Kanhar, A.P.G.
& Ms. Rukhsana Qassim Mirjat, ADPP
M/s
Malik Sadaqat Khan & Ali Sheharyar
Khan, advocates for complainant
SHO/PI
M. K. Lodhi & IP/SIP Rai
Yaqoob of PS SSGC Karachi
-------------------------------------------
Applicant/accused
Abdul Wahab son of Shoaib
Khan seeks post arrest bail in FIR No.70/2023, registered at P.S. SSGC, Karachi
for offence under Sections 15, 24 of the Gas Theft Control & Recovery Act,
2016, after dismissal of his bail plea by learned Judge, Gas Utility Court,
Karachi Division vide order dated 11.09.2025.
2. Briefly
stated, the facts of prosecution case are that on 22.11.2023, on spy
information, complainant along with technical staff and police party conducted
a raid at Plot No.L-381, Street No.14, Sector-1, Pakhtoon
Abad, Manghopir, Karachi,
where a Nimco and Chips factory was found operational.
It is alleged that factory was running on stolen gas through 18-feet spring pipe
connected to the service/auxiliary line of SSGC, that a bhatti
was being fuelled through said stolen gas, and that a locally-made 15 KVA
generator, blue and black in colour fitted with Volta
battery and gas kit, was also operational through direct gas line, producing electricity
for the factory. The generator and spring pipe were seized on the spot.
Photographs were taken, and the name of the proprietor was disclosed as Abdul Wahab, the present applicant. Thereafter, FIR was lodged,
investigation was conducted and challan was submitted
on 06.12.2023.
3. Learned
counsel for applicant submits that applicant is not nominated in the FIR and he
has been falsely implicated in this case due to mala fide intentions and
ulterior motives; that there is nothing on record which connects the applicant
with the alleged offence; that owner of premises has not been examined by the
IO; that FIR is based on spy information without any corroborative piece of
evidence, therefore, his case calls for further inquiry in terms of Section
497(2), Cr.PC; that the complainant of this case has
been examined and only 2/3 witnesses are remained to be examined at trial. He
finally prayed for grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant/accused.
4. On the
other hand, learned counsel for SSGC opposed for grant of bail on the ground
that applicant is nominated in the FIR; he runs the business of preparation of Nimco/confectionary; that sufficient material has been collectd by SSGC, which connects him with the alleged
offence; that applicant has caused loss of about Rs.3,600,000/- to the
Exchequer; that he has failed to prove his case on the point of mala fide on
the part of the complainant to falsely implicate him in this case, therefore,
he is not entitled for grant of extra-ordinary relief by way of pre-arrest
bail. Learned ADPP adopted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for SSGC.
5. Heard
learned counsel for applicant, learned counsel for complainant, learned ADPP and
perused the material available on record.
6. From
tentative assessment of the material available on record it appears that the
applicant is nominated in FIR, wherein it is alleged that he is involved in
committing theft of gas to run his factory for preparation of Nimco/Confectionary and the SSGC has calculated the loss of
Rs.3,600,000/- caused by the applicant to the Exchequer. During raid,
sufficient material has been collected by the Technical Team of SSGC from the
place of incident. The requirement for grant of pre-arrest bail is settled by
the apex Court where applicant has to prove his case on the point of mala fide
for his false implication in the case, which he failed to. No case for grant of
extra-ordinary concession of pre-arrest bail has been made out, which is meant
to protect innocent persons from humiliation and arrest. Reliance is placed on the cases of Mukhtar Ahmed versus the State (2016 SCMR 2064) and Gulshan Ali Solangi and Others
versus the State through P.G. Sindh (2020 SCMR 2064). Sufficient material is
available on record, which connects the applicant with the commission of
alleged offence. No case for grant of pre-arrest
bail is made out, hence interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant by
this Court vide order dated 19.09.2025 is hereby recalled and the instant
criminal bail application is dismissed.
7. The
observations made herein above are tentative in nature and would not prejudice
the case of either party at trial.
8. Instant
criminal bail application is disposed of in the above terms.
J U D G E
Gulsher/PS