1991 P Cr (PLP)
ABDUL HAFEEZ BHATTI and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL HAFEEZ BHATTI and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 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: 1991 P Cr (PLP) (ABDUL HAFEEZ BHATTI and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Basit Babar for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Accused persons appeared to have acted in violation of rules and regulations governing the installation of fresh electric connection or shifting of already installed meters from one site to another, but it remained to be established that accused persons had caused any monetary loss to WAPDA by disposing of or providing Department's material dishonestly to a consumer on cheaper rate
Accused persons had a good case for grant of post-arrest bail in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
M.A. Farani for the State. Date of hearing: 22nd April, 1991. This petition for grant of bail has been moved on behalf of four petitioners. Petitioner No.l is the contractor whereas rest of the petitioners are Line Superintendents of WAPDA.
2. According to the prosecution Abdul Hafeez Bhatti, Contractor (petitioner No.l) prepared a test report about fittings of the electric wire for providing an electric meter to one Abdul Qayyum. The connection was provided on that report with the approval of petitioners Nos.2 and 4 although no building existed on the premises in question. It is however, admitted before me that Abdul Qayyum (the consumer) paid Rs.1,200 as price of the material used by WAPDA for fixing the electric meter.
3. It is further alleged that Mohib Ali, petitioner INro.3, another Line Superintendent of WAPDA, helped one Fazal Mehmood in sing his electric meter from one site to another by making the said consumer to deposit Rs.375 whereas according to the rules that shifting could have been made by installing proper electric poles valuing about Rs.22,
000. It is admitted that no structure (pole) was used in shifting of the electric meter from one site to another, rather the shifting work was completed by fixing wooden bars costing Rs.375 instead of structures costing Rs.22,000.
4. The petitioners' bail plea was declined by the lower Court on the basis of aforementioned allegations, hence this petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as wall as for the State and also perused the record.
6. The petitioners appear to have acted in violation of the rules regulating the installation of fresh electric connection or shifting of already installed meters from one site to another. It however, remains to be established that the petitioners caused any monetary loss to WAPDA by disposing, of or providing the Department's material dishonestly to a consumer on cheaper rate. In this view of the matter I find that the petitioners have a good case for grant of post-arrest bail. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the petitioners are directed to be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail bond in the sunk of Rs.10,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C./Duty Magistrate, Bahawalpur, who shall send the surety bonds :0 accepted to the Special Judge (Central) for placing them on the record of the irrelevant file. H.B.T./A-1430/L Bail granted.