IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail Application No. S- 10 of 2022.

 

Date

               Order with signature of Judge

 

Applicant:                  Ghulam Abbass S/O Ghulam Akber, bycaste Junejo, through Mr. Manzoor Hussain Chohan, Advocate.

 

Complainant:                Mr. Muneer Ahmed Maitlo, Law Officer for SSGC Regional Office Sukkur.

 

 

The State:                  Through Mr. Ali Raza Balouch Assistant Attorney General.

 

 

Date of hearing.        24.01.2022.

Date of decision.       24.01.2022.

 

                                O R D E R.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

 

AMJAD Ali SAHITO,J.- Through the instant Crl. Bail Application, applicant/accused named above seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 122/2021, offence u/s  15, 17 and 24 SSGC Gas Theft Act read with section 427 PPC registered at Police Station New Pind Sukkur. Prior to this applicant/accused filed pre arrest bail application, which was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge Sukkur vide order dated 14.12.2021, hence he filed the instant Bail Application.

 

2.      The details and particulars of the F.I.R. are already available in the bail application and F.I.R., same could be gathered from the copy of F.I.R. attached with such application, hence needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.

3.      Learned counsel for the applicant/accused contends that applicant/accused is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention. He further contended that the complainant party used to come at the hotel for taking food but when on demand of the bill complainant annoyed and falsely booked the applicant in this false case. He lastly contended that the alleged offences do not fall under prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C, therefore case of the applicant/accused requires further inquiry and he prays for confirmation of interim pre arrest bail.

 

4.      On the other hand, learned counsel for SSGC as well as Assistant Attorney General supported the impugned order and opposed for grant of bail to the applicant/accused on the ground that applicant/accused was present at the hotel where direct connection from main gas pipe line was found which led to Madina Hotel and Sheermal and thereby caused loss to the government exchequer. Per learned counsel, no enmity or ill will has been pointed by learned counsel for the applicant to falsely implicate the accused in this case. Lastly prayed that applicant/accused is very much involved in the commission of offence and he is not entitled for concession of bail. Learned counsel appearing for SSGC has relied upon the cases of Alamgir Khan v. The State and another (2019 SCMR 1457), Mian Haroon Riaz Lucky and another v. The State and others (2021 SCMR 56), Muhammad Dildar v. The State (2018 MLD 169) Sindh, Mian Ali Adil Baig v. The State (2020 P.Cr.L.J 780) and Gul Bahar Jatoi v. The State (2021 MLD 1493) Sindh.

 

 

5.      I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record.

 

6.      From the perusal of record, it appears that complainant party found theft of Sui gas through pipe line at the place of occurrence. The accused after enquiry disclosed his name as Ghulam Abbass and on enquiry he could not give satisfactory reply and run away. Complainant has alleged the applicant/accused to be owner of the hotel whereas bail application is totally silent and even on enquiry learned counsel for applicant/accused could not point out the name of actual owner of the hotel. Complainant has secured illegal pipes. The prosecution witnesses have implicated the applicant/accused in the commission of offence while recording their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. There are reasonable grounds to believe that applicant/accused is involved in the commission of gas theft which is serious offence as in the present situation it is alarming in the society whereas our country is facing several difficult situations regarding natural resources. At bail stage only tentative assessment is to be made and nothing has been brought on record to show any ill-will or malafide on the part of the complainant, which is requirement for grant of pre-arrest bail, as such sufficient material is available on the record against the applicant/accused to connect him with the alleged offences. In this regard, I am fortified with the case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan [2019 S C M R 1129] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under:-

 

          ''Grant of pre-arrest bail is an extra ordinary remedy in criminal jurisdiction; it is diversion of usual course of law, arrest in cognizable cases; a protection to the innocent being hounded on trump up charges through abuse of process of law, therefore a petitioner seeking judicial protection is required to reasonably demonstrate that intended arrest is calculated to humiliate him with taints of mala fide; it is not a substitute for post arrest bail in every run of the mill  criminal case as it seriously hampers the course of investigation----the principles of judicial protection are being faithfully adhered to till date, therefore, grant of pre-arrest bail essentially requires considerations of malafide, ulterior motive or abuse of process of law."

 

7.      In view of above, learned counsel for the applicant/accused failed to make out a good case for grant of pre-arrest bail in the light of sub section (2) of Section 497 CrPC. In such circumstances, the instant Crl. bail Application stands dismissed and interim order dated 12.01.2022 earlier granted to the applicant/accused is hereby recalled.

 

 

8.      Needless to mention that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the learned Trial Court while deciding the case of the applicant on merits.

                                                                                                                                                                      Judge              

Irfan/P.A