1. {{BLUR PAGES}} ,:.J P/esen/7;SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.; ; Shabhir HussainVersusThe StateCrl. Misc. No. 14461/B of 2012, decided on 7th November, 2012.BAIL (ILLEGAL SUI GAS QONNECTION)- (FLAWEDinvestigation)Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--S. 497(2)-Pakistan Penal Code, i860, Ss. 462-C/462-F- -Petitioner alongwith co-accused allegedly committed theft of sui gas-Bail concession-Flawed investigation-It looked strange that a mass network of illegal gas connections was allegedly unearthed by the complainant but he took no pain to mention the names of illegal consumers of the gas correctly-Gas meter in question had not been taken into possession by the I.O. Probably for the reason that it was neither shown to him by the complainant nor handed over to him for the purpose of recovery-I.O. Did not collect any material for Sui Northern Gas Department to verity claim of petitioner regarding issuance of said demand notice- Record was also silent as to how much loss had been sustained by the said department because of alleged crime-- -Petitioner was no more required for purpose of further investigation-Case called for further inquiry-Bail after arrest granted.(Paras 5,6)w -2013 Shabhir Hussain V. The State Cr,C.319,iSlialml.H/imeed DtO-jiMf.;': .*% >.<'0 * *'; t4* U'/[Regarding allegation about illegal sui gas connection, I.O. Has not report the alleged demand notice of petitioner from the office-of Sui Gas nor did hecoJIecUhe.Meter in.qQestion. Bail was allowed].For the Petitioner: M. Irshad Chaudhry, Advocate; " ;m- >For the State and another: Mirza Abid Majeed, Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab.Date of hearing: 7th November, 2012.ORDERSHAHID HAMEED DAR, J. - Shabhir Hussain (petitioner) seeks bail after, arrest in case F.I.R.
2. No. 22/12, dated 8.1.2012 registered for offences u/S. 462-C, 462-F, PPC at Police Station, Manawan, Lahore.2. Precisely, the allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith others intercepted main distribution gas pipeline and committed theft of gas not only for ,his on consumption but also delivered its connection to more than two hundred consumers/houses.3.. . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner applied for a connection of gas supply on17.7,2008 and received a.Demand notice from Sui Northern Gas Pipeline Limited, on the basis of which he deposited an amount of Rs. 3,000/- on 21st July, 2008' the gas meter was installed by a fitter of the department and this is how, the petitioner started receiving the supply of gas in his house; none of the persons/accused mentioned in the F.I.R, is resident of the locality where the petitioner lives and their names have been mentioned in the F.I.R, just for nothing.4 On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab opposes with the contention that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious which falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C.: hence, he may not be granted the relief prayed for.5. After hearing- learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that there are certain circumstances which h have either been distorted or withheld by the complainant while reporting the crime to the police. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab after going through the record submits that the police has not succeeded in locating the whereabouts of any of the co- accused of the petitioner. Infact the statement of one Ejaz Ahmad has been recorded by the I.O. On 6.11.2012 which divulges that the persons named as co-accused of the petitioner were not the residents of the area, where the petitioner resided, It looks strange that a mass network of illegal gas connections was allegedly unearthed by the complainant but he took no pains to mention the names of illegal consumers of the gas correctly, It shows nonseriousness and dishonesty on his part. An impression arises from case Diary No. 9 as if a gas meter stood installed outside the residential house of the petitioner yet, it has not been taken into possession by the I.O., probably for the reason that it was neither' shown to him by the complainant nor handed over to him for the purpose of recovery. The Investigating Officer did not collect any material from the Sui Northern Gas Pipeline Limited to verify the claim of the petitioner regarding issuance of a demand notice and deposit of gas connection fee Rs. 3,000/- by the petitioner subsequent thereto. The record is also silent as to how much loss had been sustained by the said department because of the crime, allegedly committed by the petitioner and his co- accused. Maqsood Khan, a fitter joined investigation on 8.1.2012 whereby he fully corroborated the story of F.I.R, except for mentioning the name of the petitioner as an accused. This omission in his statement leads the prosecution case to nowhere. Similar is the situation in respect of another statement u/S. 161, Cr.P.C., rendered by Ch. Sharafat AH'. D.O-V a Sui Gas Northern Pipeline Limited, Gulebrg, Lahore. This a classic case of incompetent, dishonest and unscrupulous investigation which, as per2013 Mohsin Ali Raza Shah V. The State Cr.C.321(Shahid Hameed Dar, J.)record ahs been conducted by Muhammad Akbar, S.I. (Investigation) P.S. Manawan. The petitioner is no more required for the purpose of further investigation as report u/S. 173, Cr.P.C, stands deposited with the Trial Court on1.8.2012. Sufficient reasons exist to believe that the petitioner's case calls for further probe into his guiIt as envisaged by Section 497(2), Cr.P.C.6. Therefore, the instant application is accepted and petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.7. Before parting with this order, it is directed that the: learned Law-Officer shall establish contact with the SP (Investigation) Cantt., Lahore, apprise him of the anxiety and annoyance of this Court and require him to hold an inquiry into the conduct of the above-named Investigating Officer which shall, be completed by him within one month from today under intimation to this Court, through the learned Law Officer, as to the action taken by him against the delinquent Investigating Officer.Bail after arrest granted. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.