Summary: Bail granted ---- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 462-I & 322—Illegal electricity connection through LT/HT poles causing electrocution death—Bail—Rule of consistency and further inquiry. Petitioner, an S.D.O. LESCO, accused of negligence and reckless conduct resulting in the electrocution of a child when storm-broken cable wires carrying high tension current caused fatal shock—Held, co-accused having similar role (Line Superintendent) was already granted pre-arrest bail by Supreme Court; other co-accused were either granted post-arrest bail or declared innocent—In absence of distinguishing features, petitioner entitled to same treatment under rule of parity—Offence involved questions of mens rea and degree of negligence which required determination after trial—Case, therefore, fell within ambit of “further inquiry”—Bail confirmed. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 497—Grant of bail—Principles—Further inquiry and rule of consistency. Gravity or heinousness of offence by itself not sufficient to refuse bail when evidence raises reasonable doubt as to petitioner’s culpability—Doctrine of further inquiry implies tentative assessment revealing doubt about involvement—Rule of parity demands equal treatment where co-accused with identical role already admitted to bail—Court must consider degree of involvement, not only nature of offence—Bail confirmed subject to cooperation in investigation and trial. (c) Bail—Conditions—Cancellation of bail. Petitioner directed to cooperate with investigation and attend trial; misuse or abuse of concession or non-cooperation would entitle Trial Court to cancel bail—Observations in order declared tentative and not to prejudice merits of case. Disposition—Criminal Petition converted into appeal and allowed—Pre-arrest bail earlier granted confirmed on same terms and conditions—Petitioner to cooperate in investigation and trial; failure to do so may entail cancellation of bail—Order not approved for reporting.

Summary: Background:The petitioner, filed a petition under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, seeking post-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 145/2024 dated 02.05.2024. The FIR was registered under section 462-J of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station FIA, Circle, Gujrat. The petitioner initially filed for bail in the Sessions Court, Gujrat, which was dismissed due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. Subsequently, a similar application in the Additional Sessions Judge, Phalia was also returned on jurisdictional grounds. The petitioner then filed the current petition before the Lahore High Court.----Issues:Determining the territorial jurisdiction for taking cognizance and conducting the trial of the case between the Courts of Gujrat and Phalia.Clarifying the competent Court to entertain and decide the bail application.Establishing whether the place of occurrence or the registration of the case determines the jurisdiction for trial.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court addressed the jurisdictional ambiguity, concluding that the competent court to take cognizance and conduct the trial is determined by the place of occurrence, not the place where the FIR was registered. The court noted the following points:The FIR was registered at FIA, Circle Gujrat, but the place of occurrence is Pahrianwali, Mandi Bahauddin.Under section 177 of Cr.P.C, the trial should be conducted in the jurisdiction where the offence was committed.Section 462-G (a) PPC specifies that offences relating to electricity should be tried by the Court of Session designated as the Electricity Utilities Court.----Citations/Precedents:Section 2(a), Section 3, and the Preamble of the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974.Notification dated 08th November 2016, including specific offences under Pakistan Penal Code in the schedule of the FIA Act.Section 177 of Cr.P.C. for determining ordinary place of inquiry and trial.Section 462-G (a) PPC and Schedule-II of Cr.P.C. specifying the Court of Session as the competent court for electricity-related offences.Notification No. 325/JOB(I)/VI.F.6 dated 25.10.2019 by the Lahore High Court authorizing District and Sessions Judges in Punjab to hear cases under Section 462-G (a) of the Criminal Law (Amendments) Act, 2016.Section 185 (1) Cr.P.C. empowering the High Court to decide jurisdictional disputes between subordinate courts.Conclusion:The court decided that the competent court for this case is the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Phalia, designated as the Electricity Utility Court. This court is authorized to take cognizance of the offence, conduct the trial, and entertain bail applications. The petition was disposed of accordingly, and a copy of this order was directed to be sent to all Sessions Judges in Punjab and the Head of the Federal Investigation Agency in Punjab.----Quote: ''When question with respect to taking cognizance and conducting trial of the case between Courts of two districts arises, then it shall be decided by the High Court and the Court in whose territorial jurisdiction place of occurrence is situated, would conduct trial of the case; Inspite of inclusion of any offence in the schedule of F.I.A. Act, 1974, Court established under the parent statute of said offence will conduct trial of the case.''

Summary: Bail granted----Background: The petitioner was arrested for allegedly tampering with a gas pipeline to steal gas, as outlined in Section 462-C of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The police registered an FIR, and the petitioner sought post-arrest bail, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations. The prosecution, however, maintained that tampering with the gas pipeline was a serious offense, punishable with up to 10 years' imprisonment. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner’s alleged tampering with the gas pipeline constituted an offense under Section 462-C PPC. ----2- Whether there was sufficient evidence to deny the petitioner’s right to bail. ----3- Whether the case fell under the scope of further inquiry, making the petitioner eligible for bail under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court found that the prosecution failed to produce sufficient evidence to link the petitioner to the alleged offense. Critical evidentiary elements, such as recovery of materials used for tampering, a map of the pipeline, and forensic evidence, were absent. The court emphasized that, in line with several precedents, the liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed without sufficient cause and concrete evidence. The court concluded that the case fell under the scope of further inquiry as per Section 497(2) Cr.P.C., making the petitioner eligible for bail. The bail was granted on the condition of furnishing bail bonds of Rs.100,000 with one surety in the same amount. -----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Nawaz alias Karo vs. The State (2023 SCMR 734) Jahanzeb and Others vs. State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Peshawar and another (2021 SCMR 63) Muhammad Shafique and another vs. The State and others (2017 SCMR 79) Salman Zahid vs. The State through P.G. Sindh (2023 SCMR 1140) Gul Muhammad vs. The State (2023 SCMR 857) Muhammad Amin vs. The State (2017 YLR 609) Muhammad Arslan Ahmed vs. The State (2017 P Cr. L J 434) -----Quote: ''Evidential requirement for proof of offence u/s 462 C PPC and duty of prosecution.''

Summary: The effect of insertion of Section 462-0 PPC would be that the police after registration of the case and completion of investigation would not be competent to file a challan before the court in terms of Section 173 Cr.p.c. but the court would take cognizance of the matter on the complaint made by the authorized officer of the Distribution Company not below Grade-I7 by recording reasons for submission of complaint, therefore, it is evident from the aforesaid procedure that the police officer on receiving any complaint regarding the theft of electricity shall register a case, investigate the matter, however, for submission of the final report; instead through the mechanism provided under Section 173 Cr.P.C. he will place the same before the authorized officer of the PESCO, who after scrutinizing the investigation report shall submit a complaint before the competent court of law. It is because that Section 462-0 PPC starts with non-obstante clause which means that the mechanism of taking cognizance before the Court would be through filing of a complaint and not by submitting of challan in terms of Section 173 read with Section 190 Cr.P.C.

Summary: Bail granted---Offences for electricity theft, registration of FIR is not barred---The petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in connection with FIR registered under Section 462-I PPC at Police Station Sargodha Road Faisalabad. The prosecution allegeD that the petitioner committed theft of electricity using a bogus meter. The petitioner's counsel argued that, based on Section 462-O PPC, the registration of FIR is barred unless a complaint is made by a duly authorized officer (not below Grade 17) of the Government or the distribution company. The court noted the ambiguity in the system regarding the cognizance of offenses related to theft of electricity. It mentions the introduction of a new Chapter XVII-B in the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, making offenses in this chapter cognizable and non-bailable. The court discussed the conditional cognizance under Section 462-O PPC, emphasizing that the court can take cognizance only on a complaint made by a duly authorized officer with reasons recorded in writing. The court concluded that FIR registration is not barred for cognizable offenses under this chapter. The judgment highlighted the importance of the "reasons to be recorded" requirement, considering electricity theft involves technical reports requiring expert opinions. It draws parallels with other laws like the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016, where cognizance does not bar FIR registration. The court observed discrepancies in the prosecution's story, leading to questions about the petitioner's involvement and potential malafide intentions. The court grants pre-arrest bail, allowing an exploration of the case's merits.

Summary: Background:The case involves Mian Haroon Riaz Lucky and Mian Salman Riaz, who run an ice factory called Sartaj Ice Factory. It is alleged that they have been siphoning off natural gas from the main supply to their factory, leading to several criminal cases against them. During a raid conducted by a team from Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited, the petitioners resisted and locked themselves inside the premises. A case was registered against them under section 462-C of the Pakistan Penal Code.---Issues:Whether the FIR registered against the petitioners is sustainable in light of the Gas (Theft, Control and Recovery) Act, 2016.Whether the petitioners, as owners of the factory, can be held responsible for any wrongdoing by the lessee.Whether the High Court was correct in declining the request to quash the FIR.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court examined the provisions of the Gas (Theft, Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 and concluded that the registration of the FIR was legally sustainable. While the Act introduced a new mechanism for prosecution and trial of gas theft cases, it did not abolish the authority of the police to register FIRs, conduct searches, or effect arrests. The petitioners' argument that they had leased out the factory to a third party was deemed irrelevant to the criminal proceedings against them. The Court emphasized the importance of due process in criminal prosecutions and upheld the decision of the High Court to deny the request to quash the FIR.---Precedents :The judgment cited numerous cases to support its conclusion, including:M.D. Tahir Vs. Federal Government and 12 others (1989 CLC 1369)Sher Ali Baz and another Vs. The Secretary, Establishment Division and others (PLD 1991 S.C. 143)Muhammad Mohsin Ghuman and others Vs. Government of Punjab through Home Secretary, Lahore and others (2013 SCMR 85)Muhammad Arslan Ahmad Vs. The State (2017 P.Cr.L.J. 434)Wajid Khan Vs. The State and others (2020 P. Cr.L.J. 454)

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 462-K & 462-O---Interference, improper use or tampering with electric meter byindustrial or commercial consumer---Cognizance---Scope---Sub-Division Officer (SDO)lodged FIR with the FIA containing allegations of theft of electricity by the accused fromnear boshes of transformer for running his tube-well and service station---Offences relatingto Chapt. XVII-B of P.P.C. were covered by the provisions of S. 462-O, P.P.C. which oustedthe applicability of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 or any other law for the time beingin force relating the assumption of jurisdiction by the Court---Court could not takecognizance of any offence under Chapter XVII-B, P.P.C., except on a complaint made withreasons to be recorded in writing along with full particulars of the offence committed underthe chapter, by duly authorized officer (not below Grade 17) of the Government or thedistribution company---Proceedings were carried out in violation of the provisions of S. 462-O, P.P.C.---Appeal against conviction was accepted, in circumstances.Muhammad Mohsin Ghaman and others v. Government of Punjab through HomeSecretary Lahore and others 2013 SCMR 85 rel.(b) Administration of justice-------When the law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner it must be done in thesame manner as provided under the law, as deviation from the prescribed procedure amountsto violation of law.(c) Administration of justice-------Mandatory pre-requisites of law, if not followed, then the entire proceedings would benullified in the eyes of law

Summary: Bail denied---Background:Alamgir Khan, the petitioner, sought admission to bail after being apprehended by a raiding party within the premises of Police Station Lakki Marwat. He was allegedly caught siphoning natural gas to generate electricity illegally, which was being distributed to nearby consumers. Additionally, he was accused of brandishing a pistol and intimidating the authorities before fleeing the scene.---Issues:The primary issue was whether there were reasonable grounds to prima facie frame charges against the petitioner under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and Section 462-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Court found that the evidence presented, including witness statements and the seized apparatus, constituted reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was involved in the alleged offenses. Given the severity of the charges and the potential punishment, the Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts to deny bail. The petition was dismissed.---Quote:Section 462-C of the PPC falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of Criminal Procedure Code.

Summary: Bail denied ----- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 322 & 462-I; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ---- Ss. 497, 498 & Second Schedule; Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ---- Arts. 111 & 113 Electric shock resulting in death --- Illegal attachment of cable wires to electricity poles --- Criminal liability of WAPDA/LESCO officials --- Pre-arrest bail, refusal of --- Scope --- Petitioners, both LESCO employees (Line Superintendent and SDO), were accused in FIR under Ss. 462-I & 322 PPC for criminal negligence causing death of a child by electrocution after cable wires illegally attached to HT poles collapsed during a storm --- Held, petitioners themselves had reported the illegal use of electricity poles by cable operators, but did not take effective action to disconnect or prevent reattachment despite repeated violations --- Petitioners' knowledge of hazard and their inaction established prima facie recklessness --- Under S. 322 PPC, though punishment is Diyat, offence is non-bailable per Second Schedule Cr.P.C. --- Death of child was admitted by SDO in complaint; post-mortem not essential where death by electrocution is otherwise convincingly established --- Courts may take judicial notice under Art. 111 QSO of widespread illegal use of power infrastructure by cable operators --- Admission by SDO treated as proof under Art. 113 QSO --- Petitioners failed to establish malafide or false implication --- No case for pre-arrest bail made out --- Bail denied and interim relief recalled. Cited Cases: • Abdul Rehman v. The State (1998 SCMR 1778) • Muhammad Riaz v. The State (1986 PCrLJ 2233) • Raheem Ullah v. The State (1985 PCrLJ 463)