2017 P Cr (PLP)
HAKIM ALI — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HAKIM ALI — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 P Cr (PLP) (HAKIM ALI — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 462-J
Ad interim pre-arrest bail, recalling of
Accused was nominated in the FIR with the specific allegation of committing theft of electricity by establishing a direct connection with the main line
Said allegation found support from the statements of Lineman and Assistant Lineman recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C.
Accused had only paid a portion of the detection bill calculated by the electricity department, and a huge amount was still outstanding against him
Even if accused had deposited the whole detection bill, it still was not a valid ground to confirm his ad interim pre-arrest bail
Offence under S. 462-J, P.P.C. was non-bailable
Accused was unable to establish any mala fide or malice on part of the electricity department or the police for falsely implicating him in the present case
Ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to accused was recalled in circumstances.
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 462-J
Scope
Detection bill, payment of
Effect
Mere deposit of even whole detection bill after registration of a criminal case against an accused for theft of national resource (like electricity) could not be considered a valid ground for confirmation of his pre-arrest bail.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, J.
Petitioner Hakim Ali seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.152 dated 13.05.2016 under section 462-J, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Ahmad Yar, Pakpattan.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. Petitioner is nominated in the FIR with the specific allegation of committing theft of electricity by establishing a direct connection with the main L.T. line that finds support from the statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. of witnesses Talib Hussain, Lineman-II and Ali Raza, Assistant Lineman.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stressed a lot on the sole argument that the petitioner has already paid the whole amount of detection bill calculated against him by the complainant department. Learned counsel for the complainant department informs that only a little amount has been deposited by the petitioner and a huge amount is still outstanding against him. I am of the considered view that mere deposit of even whole detection bill after registration of a criminal case against an accused for theft of national resources cannot be considered a valid ground for confirmation of his pre-arrest bail. Needless to add that such an argument in favour of an accused for grant of extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail can definitely encourage thieves of national resources to save their skin only by deposit of an amount in the garb of detection bill manipulated after disclosure of their crime. Offence under section 462-J is non-bailable and besides the punishment of two years imprisonment, fine of Rupees one million is also provided. Learned counsel for the petitioner remained unable to establish any mala fide or malice on the part of the complainant department or of the police for false implication of the petitioner in this case that is sine qua non for the grant of pre-arrest bail. In such like cases, a very serious notice has already been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Sana Ullah v. State" (2016 SCMR 1527). In view of all above, no case for bail before arrest is made out and this bail petition being devoid of any force is dismissed. The ad interim pre arrest bail granted to the petitioner on 07.10.2016 is recalled.
5. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition. MWA/H-3/L Pre-arrest bail recalled.