IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Crl. Bail Application No. S- 752 of 2023
Applicants : Taj Muhammad & another, present (on bail),
through Mr. Noshad Ahmed Bhutto, Advocate.
State : Through Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Additional
Prosecutor General.
Mr. Oshaq Ali Sangi, Assistant Attorney
General.
Date of hearing : 19.02.2024.
Date of Order : 19.02.2024.
O R D E R.
Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J.- Applicants Taj Muhammad son of Imam Bux and Muhammad Ali son of Ahmed Khan, seek their admission on pre-arrest bail in Crime No.125/2023, registered at Police Station City, Jacobabad, u/s 353, PPC &* Section 39-A of Electricity Act, after rejection of their plea by the learned Sessions Judge/Electricity Utilities Court, Jacobabad, vide separate orders dated 12.12.2023.
2. According to the case of prosecution, on 11.11.2023, at about 4.00 p.m., complainant Muhammad Farhan Memon, SDO SEPCO Sub-Division-I, Jacobabad, during routine checking found the applicants/accused committing theft of electricity at their respective houses by installing direct ‘Kunda’ connection and on being asked by the complainant they attacked upon and gave pushes to the complainant; hence, such FIR was lodged by the complainant.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He next submits that co-accused Liaquat Ali, whose case is altogether identical to that of the present applicants, has been granted post arrest bail by the trial Court/Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, on the ground of having entered into a settlement with the SEPCO Authorities; whereas the applicants, who have also made settlement with the SEPCO, have been refused the concession of pre-arrest bail without any cogent ground.
4. Learned Addl. P.G. as well as learned Assistant Attorney General, do not oppose the bail application, mainly on the ground that co-accused Liaquat Ali, whose case is identical to that of the applicants, has been released on bail on the ground of settlement, as such, the applicants also deserve same treatment, as they have also entered into settlement with the SEPCO.
5. Heard arguments and perused the record.
6. Per FIR, the allegation against the applicants and co-accused Liaquat Ali is that they by installing direct ‘Kunda’ connections at their houses were committing theft of electricity and on being enquired by the complainant, they scuffled with him. Co-accused Liaquat Ali has been granted post arrest bail by the learned trial Court, mainly on the ground that he has entered into a settlement with SEPCO Authorities. Per learned Counsel, the applicants have also made same settlement with the SEPCO Authorities, but inspite of that their plea for bail has been turned down by the learned trial Court. It is not understandable that out of three accused, when one has been granted post arrest bail, how the concession of pre-arrest bail on the same ground(s) could be refused to the others. In case the applicants may be remanded to custody today, then tomorrow again they will be granted bail on the rule of consistency. Hence, no legal or technical purpose will be served by putting them in jail. Reliance can be placed upon the case of Muhammad Ramzan v. Zafar Ullah and another (1986 SCMR 1380). Even otherwise, per FIR, the alleged incident is shown to have occurred in daytime i.e. at 4.00 p.m. at busy place i.e. near Keenjhar Chowk of Jacobabad City, where availability of other persons of the locality cannot be denied, yet no independent person of the vicinity has been cited as witness of the alleged occurrence. The punishment of alleged offence does not exceed the limits of prohibition contained under 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 is reported to have been challaned and after grant of ad-interim pre-arrest bail the applicants are not shown or alleged to have misused such concession. 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.”
7. For the forgoing reasons, in my view, the applicants have made out their case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Consequently, instant bail application is hereby allowed. Resultantly, interim bail already granted to the applicants vide order dated 20.12.2023 is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.
JUDGE
Qazi Tahir/*