2012 PLP 1685 (SCMR)
Dr. MUHAMMAD RIAZ AKHTAR alias Dr. SHAHID — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 PLP 1685 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar and Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry, JJ |
| Parties | Dr. MUHAMMAD RIAZ AKHTAR alias Dr. SHAHID — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 1685 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 1685 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar and Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 1685 (SCMR) (Dr. MUHAMMAD RIAZ AKHTAR alias Dr. SHAHID — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Habib ur Rehman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 19th July, 2012.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 21-6-2012 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.8298-BC/2012 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore).
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 462-C
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Tampering with auxiliary or distribution pipelines of petroleum (gas)
Absence of incriminating evidence
Offence not falling within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Allegation against the accused (petitioner) was that he disrupted the natural gas distribution pipeline and illegally supplied natural gas to 500 houses in the locality
Accused was granted bail by the Trial Court but same was cancelled/recalled by the High Court
Contentions of the accused were that there was no incriminating material available on the record against the accused which could justify cancellation of bail; that consumers of the gas who had been allegedly supplied gas by the accused had not stated before the police during the course of investigation that the accused was a distributor of supply of gas through illegal means, and that the High Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused merely on the severeness of the allegation levelled against him
Prima facie, there was nothing on record to connect the accused with the alleged crime as no one entered appearance before the police to state that accused had been charging an amount for supply of gas
No natural gas connection was available in the house of the accused
Offence with which the accused was charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Trial Court had rightly granted bail to the accused treating the case as one of further inquiry and the High Court had erred in law while cancelling the bail
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed by setting aside the order passed by the High Court
Accused was admitted to bail accordingly. Mazhar Sher Awan, Additional P.-G., Muhammad Javed, Executive Law Officer SNGPL, Asghar Ali, S.-I. and Muhammad Anwar, A.S.-I. for the State. Complainant (Respondent No.2) in person.
Judgment & Decree
IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, J.
Through the instant petition Dr. Muhammad Riaz alias Dr. Shahid, petitioner, seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 21-6-2012 passed by the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8298/BC/12 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.7591/B/2012 whereby the post arrest bail granted to the petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Lahore was cancelled.
2. Precise allegation against the petitioner is that he, by disrupting the natural gas distribution pipe line, had illegally supplied natural gas to 500 houses in the locality. F.I.R. No.50 dated 18-1-2012 was accordingly registered under section 462-C, P.P.C. at Police Station, Shah Bagh, Lahore. After registration of the F.I.R. the petitioner was arrested. He applied for grant of bail before the learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30 who vide order dated 11-5-2012 admitted him to post arrest bail. The complainant filed application for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner by filing Criminal Miscellaneous No.7591-B of 2012 which was allowed and the bail of the petitioner was cancelled through impugned judgment against which the petitioner has filed this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is against law and facts of the case; that the learned single Judge in Chamber of the Lahore High Court was not justified to cancel post arrest bail granted to the petitioner by the learned trial Court; that there was no allegation of misuse of concession, of bail by the petitioner; that there is no incriminating material available on record against the petitioner which could justify cancellation of bail; that the consumers of the gas who has allegedly been supplied gas by the petitioner have not been challaned in the court and even none of the said persons stated before the Police during the course of investigation that the petitioner was the distributor of supply of gas through illegal means; that the learned High Court, has cancelled the bail of the petitioner merely on the severeness of the allegation levelled against the petitioner in the F.I.R. without touching merits of the case.
4. On the other hand learned Additional Prosecutor-General as well as the complainant appearing in person have opposed this petition.
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
6. The petitioner is alleged to have supplied gas to 500 houses by disrupting the Gas Pipe Line. Prima facie there is nothing on record to connect him with the alleged crime .as no one entered appearance before the Police to state that the petitioner had been charging amount for supply of gas. Even otherwise there. is no connection available of natural gas in the house of the petitioner. In the circumstances, the offence with which .the petitioner has been charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause under section 497, Cr.P.C. as such he was rightly granted bail by the learned trial Court being treating his case as of further inquiry but the learned High Curt has erred in law while cancelling bail granted to the petitioner by the learned trial Court.
7. In the above circumstance we convert this petition into appeal and allow the same by setting aside the order dated 21-6-2012 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore. The petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. However, it is made clear that the observations made in this order are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice case of either party at the trial. MWA/M-46/SC Bail granted.