TASSADUQ HUSSSAIN JILANI, J.- The petitioner seeks bail in a case F.I.R. No. 90, dated 9.2.1999 under Section 39-A of the Electricity Act registered with Police Station, Jhang Saddar.
2. The prosecution story as given in the F.I.R, lodged on the statement of Assistant Director (Surveillance) FESCO Circle Jhang briefly stated is that on 8.2.1999, on a source report that the petitioner Muhammad Shafi was indulging in the criminal transaction of slowing down the electricity meter, a fake customer was sent to the petitioner and a raid was conducted by a party consisting of Army and WAPDA officials whereafter petitioner was apprehended red handed. The meter and the other apparatus necessary for the alleged transaction were also recovered from the petitioner. His co-accused Ghulam Muhammad however, decamped from the spot.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail on the ground that the meter recovered was not installed any where, therefore, it could not be said that the electricity was being stolen; that the principal accused ran away during the raid and that the offence does not fall in the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. He has relied on PLD 1995 SC 34.
4. Learned Assistant A.G, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the afore-referred bail petition by submitting that petitioner was found indulging in a heinous crime which has a grave ramification for society; that the incidents of electricity theft through tempering with meter have adversely affected public revenues and that merely because the offence does not fall in the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C, would not entitle him to be released on bail. In support of his submissions he has relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Pir Bakhsh v. The State (1999 P.Cr.L.J. 111).
5. Heard.
6. The petitioner was caught red handed. Meter and the requisite apparatus to slow down the electricity meters were also recovered from him. The allegation if found true, reflects commission of a serious offence which have grave social consequences. The petitioner has not attributed any enmity to the police or any member of the raiding party to warrant inference that he has been falsely implicated. The case law to which reference has been made is not relevant firstly because before the Hon'ble Supreme Court a petition for cancellation of bail had been find which bail had been granted by the High Court. The August Supreme Court while dismissing the petition for cancellation of bail observed at page 41:- "The considerations for the grant of bail and for cancellation of the same are altogether different."
That being so, the afore-referred precedent case law would be of no help to the petitioner. It is a settled principle of law that merely because an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C, would not entitle the accused to be released on bail. The gravity of the offence, its repetition and the social consequences have to be kept in mind.
7. For afore-referred reasons, I am not inclined to allow this petition which fails and is hereby dismissed.