ISLAMABAD(National Times)- The Supreme Court on Friday underlined the need for a microscopic examination of the role of individuals involved in the theft, unauthorised sale and private siphoning of electricity, rather than supplying it through authorised channels.
The observation came from a two-judge SC bench, comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, which was hearing a bail-cancellation petition in a case where a person suffered an electric shock after a power wire snapped.
In a six-page order, Justice Mazhar emphasised the need for a thorough examination of current practices by Wapda and the concerned utility companies, observing that it was inconceivable that electricity could be supplied without the knowledge of Wapda, or the concerned utility company and its officials.
Petitioner Ali Asghar Khokhar, a resident of Khuhawar Street, Larkana, had filed a criminal petition before the SC seeking cancellation of bail granted to respondent Anwar Ali Kori by the Sindh High Court’s Larkana circuit bench on Oct 20, 2025.
Wonders how ‘unauthorised’ supply rackets run under Wapda officials’ noses
The case stemmed from an incident in March 2024, when Noor Hussain, the petitioner’s brother, suffered an electric shock after a PVC wire broke and came into contact with a high-tension line. Subsequently, an FIR was registered at Rehmatpur police station in Larkana against Anwar Ali Kori and other Wapda officials.
The allegation was that the co-accused, including Wapda officials and the respondent, were supplying electricity to people in their shops by laying a special line from the disposal phase line and running an electric wire over the complainant’s shops.
The complainant, who appeared in person before the SC, argued that the high court had granted bail without examining the facts and the incriminating material collected by the investigating officer (IO).
However, the SC noted that the high court had granted bail to the respondent predominantly on the grounds of a nine-month delay in lodging the FIR, besides the fact that the role attributed to the respondent was one of negligence.
Furthermore, the high court’s order also reflected the IO’s statement that the respondent had no contact with Wapda officials.
Therefore, after considering the relevant factors, the high court had reached the tentative assessment that the allegations levelled in the FIR required further inquiry and accordingly confirmed the bail order, the SC observed. It added that the matter at hand also required further inquiry and that, unless a full-dress trial was conducted, the role and guilt of the accused persons implicated in the case could not be established.
The SC recalled that, when the complainant was asked how he was powering his shop, he said the respondent was working as a contractor in collusion with Wapda officials and supplying electricity to his shop against monetary consideration. He added that he had never been issued a bill by Wapda or any other utility company.
However, after arguing at some length, the complainant himself stated that since the trial was pending, he did not wish to press for cancellation of the respondent’s bail.
The SC observed that the high court’s order granting bail did not require any interference and directed the court office to transmit a copy of the order to the Wapda chairman for information.
