' SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, J.--Through captioned post-arrest bail application, applicant Muhammad Amin has impugned order dated 14.04.2016, whereby his earlier bail application was declined by the Court of learned VII-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East.
2. Releyant facts narrated in instant FIR are that complainant Ramesh Kumar, Deputy Manager SSGC along with his subordinates raided Plot No,K-111, Manzoor Colony, Sector 6/J/21, Junejo Town and found 15/16 houses consuming sui gas illegally. Complainant further raided on Plot No,6/J/21, where Embrodiery Factory was functioning and 5 KV Generator was installed to consume Sui Gas illegally, but due to crowd at the spot said generator could not be taken into custody and he secured 10 rubber pipes, hence instant FIR.
3. Learned counsel for application contended that application is innocent and has been falsely implicated in instant case by complainant with ulterior motives and investigating officer has failed to collect any direct evidence to establish that applicant is owner of said plot or said factory; that no action was initiated against 15/16 houses consuming sui gas illegally that alleged offence is punishable up to 10 years and not less than 5 years. Learned counsel relied on 2016 SCM R 18, 2014 M LD 1461 and also produced copy of order dated 19.10.2015, passed by the High Court in Criminal Bail Application No,825 of 2015.
4. While controverting the above submissions, learned Special Prosecutor SSGC contended that applicant has committed theft of Sui Gas which is an offence against the State and he is not entitled for concession of bail, that during investigation copy of rent agreement was collected and statements of attesting witnesses were recorded by Investigating Officer; however, he conceded that names of owner of plot and attesting witnesses have not been mentioned in list of witnesses in Challan. Learned counsel files copy of order dated 21.04.2016 passed in Bail Application No,403/2016, which is taken on record.
5. Heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and claimed material available on record. For averments of FIR complainant at the first instant raided at Plot No,K-111, Manzoor Colony Sector 6/J/21,Junejo Town, where he found 15/16 houses using Sui Gas through illegal connections but no action was initiated against them nor any plausible explanation has been furnished in this regard. Investigating Officer has failed to produce any tangible evidence that applicant is owner of said plot or any Sui Gas meter was installed in the name of applicant. Even no documentary proof has been collected that applicant is tenant of the plot or owner of said Embroidery Factory. There are allegations of using 5 KV Generator for running the Embroider Factory by committing theft of Sui Gas from service line. However, at the time of raid at the factory, no gas meter was found installed in the premises in the name of applicant nor pipeline allegedly connected with the service gas line was recovered from the spot. Complainant collected 10 rubber pipes from the spot but said 5 KV Generator was not taken into custody despite the availability of police with raiding party. Neither owner of the plot nor attesting witnesses of alleged rent agreement have been cited as witnesses in Challan, nor in absence of direct evidence is regarding commission of alleged theft, recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses essential. Applicant is no more required for further investigation. Learned trial Court has yet not framed charge against applicant, hence commencement of trial is not in Ashraf v. The State 2016 SCMR 16 the honourable Supreme Court has observed that "care and caution to be exercised by Court when granting/refusing bail to an accused. To curtail the liberty of a person was a serious step in law, therefore, the judges should apply judicial mind with deep thought for reaching at a fair and proper conclusion albeit tentatively. Such exercise should not be carried out in vacuum or in a flimsy and causal manner as that would defeat the ends of justice because if the accused charged, was ultimately acquitted at the trial then no reparation or compensation could be awarded to him for the long incarceration, as the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code and the scheme of law on the subject did not provide for such arrangements to repair the loss, caused to an accused person, detained in jail without just cause and reasonable grounds. Extraordinary care and caution should, thus, be exercised by the judges in the course of granting or refusing to grant bail to an accused person, charged for offence(s), punishable with capital punishment.
6. Per section 462(c), P.P.C. Any person tampering with the distribution of pipe line shall be punished with sentence up to 10 years and not less than 5 years with fine to the extent of Rupees Three Million. It is well settled that while examining the question of bail, Court has to consider the minimum aspect of the sentence provided in schedule for alleged offence. All PWs cited in Challan are officers of SSGC, hence there is no apprehension of tampering with the prosecution evidence if applicant is enlarged on bail as entire material has already been collected by the Investigating Officer which is in safe custody of the prosecution. It is incumbent upon the Court to scan the material prudently while considering the question of bail, and. Court should not deprive the accused being influenced from the sensitivity of offence or capital punishment provided for the alleged offence.
7. For the foregoing facts and circumstances, applicant has succeeded to make out his case for grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry as envisaged under section 497(2), Cr. P. C .
Consequently, applicant is admitted to post arrest bail subject to the furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,300,000 (Rupees Three Lac) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
' The observations made supra are tentative in nature and learned trial Court shall decide the subject case purely on, its merits.