1998 P Cr (PLP)

Qazi Ahmad Naeem Qureshi for the State. A case under section 381-A/411, P.P.C, read with section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 is registered against the petitioner on the ground that he was caught red-handed while handling a stolen car bearing Registration No.IDH-3018.

2. The brief facts are that the aforesaid car was stolen from the area of F.7/1, Islamabad on 23-6-1997 for which the present F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant. The police traced out the stolen vehicle aforesaid, which was found parked within the premises of P.I.M.S., Islamabad and was covered with a canvas cloth. A watchful eye was kept on the vehicle secretly by the police. The petitioner came there, removed the canvas cloth and opened the door of the car for taking it away but was nabbed by the police. On personal search, 12 pieces of keys relating to different vehicles, three pieces of registration books and three fuel tank lockers were recovered from him. The investigation also showed that the petitioner was operating in a gang in which two other persons from Peshawar were also involved because after the theft of cars, those were moved to the Frontier where those were disposed of after tampering with their original engine number, etc. The warrants of arrest of those accused have also allegedly been' obtained by the police. Lastly, it is-pointed out that the petitioner is involved in another similar case but has been released on bail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that none of the offences, attributed to the petitioner, falls within the prohibitory clause and as such, the petitioner is entitled to bail as a matter of right that the mere recovery of registration books, keys and fuel tank lockers from the petitioner would not link him with the stealing of car because he was only removing the canvas cloth when was overpowered by the police, which at the most, would link him for an attempt to steal the car but nothing beyond that. Lastly, it was contended that the police was pestering the petitioner as the latter was running the business of Rent- a-Car and because of frequent demands of the police, he was unable to oblige them, whereupon, they turned against them and falsely implicated him in this case.

4. Learned State Counsel opposed the bail on the ground that the car thefts are rampant in the city, therefore, the persons involved in it should be firmly dealt with. The mere fact that the maximum punishment in such an offence is up to seven years would not entitle the petitioner to bail particularly when there is circumstantial evidence, which shows that the keys of different vehicles, fuel tank lockers and registration books were recovered from him. These are the circumstances, which will link him further with the crime which is yet under investigation as other members of gang are yet to be hauled up under the law. The petitioner, having been nabbed red-handed has allegedly no case for bail.

5. I have considered the above submissions and find that the points raised by the learned State Counsel are not without substance. This is the second case against the petitioner of the same nature. He was caught red-handed after he had opened the door of the car by removing, the canvas cloth with which it was found covered. The recovery of instruments aforementioned would also show that no person would normally keep them until and unless he has an axe to grind. Keeping all these facts in view and without entering into the deeper appreciation of the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial itself, I refrain to release the petitioner on bail at this stage.

6. The petition is accordingly dismissed: N.H.Q./M-487/L Bail refused.