ISLAMABAD, Nov 06 (DNA):The Supreme Court on Friday has stressed the need for a thorough examination of the role of WAPDA and concerned power distribution company officials in cases involving electricity theft and illegal sale of electricity, directing that a copy of its order be sent to the WAPDA chairman.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan issued the directions while hearing a petition seeking cancellation of the pre-arrest bail granted to an accused in a case involving electrocution caused by a broken electricity wire.
The court observed that it was difficult to believe that electricity could be supplied without the knowledge of WAPDA or the concerned power company and its officials. It said the roles of all those involved in electricity theft, illegal sale of power and private electricity supply outside the authorized procedure should be thoroughly examined by the relevant authorities.
According to the court order, petitioner Ali Asghar Khokhar alleged that a contractor was supplying electricity to shops with the connivance of WAPDA officials. During this arrangement, a PVC wire connected to a high-tension line broke, resulting in the electrocution of his brother, Noor Hussain.
The petitioner had sought cancellation of the pre-arrest bail granted to accused Anwar Ali Kori but later decided not to pursue the petition during the hearing before the Supreme Court.
The court observed that the legal principles governing the grant and cancellation of bail were distinct, adding that bail could not be cancelled merely on the basis of unreasonable grounds. Cancellation required establishing that bail had been granted illegally or that the accused had misused the concession, intimidated witnesses, attempted to destroy evidence or interfered with the investigation.
The bench further observed that the role of each accused and determination of criminal liability could only be established after a regular trial. It, therefore, found no reason to interfere with the Sindh High Court’s order upholding the accused’s bail.
The Supreme Court disposed of the petition as withdrawn, clarifying that its observations would not affect the merits of the pending criminal case, which would be decided by the trial court in accordance with law.
The court also directed that a copy of its order be forwarded to the WAPDA chairman for information.
