Supreme Court urges scrutiny of alleged illegal electricity links

The Supreme Court has called for close scrutiny of the people allegedly involved in electricity theft, unauthorised sale and private supply arrangements outside the formal utility system. The observation came during hearing of a petition seeking cancellation of bail in a case arising from an electrocution incident in Larkana.

A two-member bench comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan examined the matter after a petitioner challenged bail granted by the Sindh High Court to one of the accused. The case concerns an incident in March 2024 in which the petitioner’s brother suffered an electric shock after a PVC wire reportedly came into contact with a high-tension line.

According to the case record described in the court proceedings, an FIR was registered at Rehmatpur police station against an accused person and other officials after allegations that electricity had been routed to shops through a special line. The complainant alleged that a contractor, acting in collusion with utility staff, supplied electricity for payment and that no regular bill had been issued for his shop.

In its six-page order, the bench said the alleged practice required thorough examination by the Water and Power Development Authority and the concerned electricity companies. The court questioned how an unauthorised electricity supply arrangement could operate without the knowledge of the relevant utility organisation or its officials.

The court, however, did not cancel the respondent’s bail. It noted that the high court had considered a nine-month delay in lodging the FIR and the nature of the role attributed to the respondent, which was described as negligence. It also referred to the investigating officer’s statement that the respondent had no contact with utility officials.

The Supreme Court said the allegations required further inquiry and that responsibility or guilt could not be established without a full trial. During the hearing, the complainant said he did not wish to continue pressing for cancellation of bail because the trial was pending. The bench found no reason to interfere with the bail order and directed its office to send a copy of the order to the Wapda chairman for information.