2005 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Ayaz Khan, D.‑A.G. for the State. Date of hearing: 2nd December, 2004. Having been involved in case F.I.R. No.632 dated 16‑9‑2004 registered at P.S. Pishtakhara under section 489‑B, P.P.C. the accused -petitioner applied for his release on bail in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Peshawar but his application was dismissed vide order, date 7‑10‑2004. Thereafter he moved the Court of learned Additional Session; Judge, Peshawar, but his application was rejected vide order, dated 27‑10-2004. Now he has moved this Court for his release on bail.

2. The prosecution case is that on 16‑9‑2004 at 15‑00 hours during Nakabandi at Bara Qadeem Check Post the police party headed by Muhammad Bashir Khan, S.‑I. P.S. Pishtakhara intercepted the petitioner coming from Bara. His personal search led to the recovery of sixty counterfeit currency notes of Rs.500 denomination each. He was arrested and the above‑mentioned case was registered against him.

3. Pir Fida Muhammad Khan, Advocate the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that at the most the petitioner was found in possession of currency notes about which he had no knowledge that the same were forged or counterfeit. He was neither buying, nor selling the same when he was apprehended and he was not trafficking the same also. The provisions of section 489‑B, P.P.C. are, therefore, not applicable to his case.

4. On the other hand Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Khan, Deputy Advocate‑General argued that at the time of his arrest the accused- petitioner was trafficking huge sum of Rs.30,000 fake currency notes and the section of law with which he is charged is punishable with 10 years imprisonment, which falls under the ‑prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. hence his bail application deserves dismissal.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The perusal of the record indicates that the accused‑petitioner at the time of his arrest was neither exchanging nor buying nor selling nor trafficking the fake currency notes as genuine having knowledge to believe that the same was forged or counterfeit. The prosecution is yet to prove through convincing evidence in the trial Court that the offence with which the accused‑petitioner has been charged falls under section 498‑B and not 489‑C, P.P.C. No independent witness was associated by the police party when the alleged recovery was made, though the petitioner was, apprehended at a busy place i.e. Old Bara Check Post. While relying on the dicta laid down in Sher Ahmad v. The State PLD 1993 Pesh. 104, Abdul Maroof v. The State PLD 1993 Pesh. 167, Shafique Sajid v. The State 1988 PCr.LJ 1553, State through Advocate‑General, N.‑W.F.P. v. Shah Nawaz 1996 MLD 2049 and Hassan v. The State 1984 PCr.LJ 1281 it can safely be held that the case of the accused‑petitioner is arguable for the purpose of bail being that of further enquiry. For the foregoing reasons I accept this application and allow bail to the accused‑petitioner provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (two lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means. H.B.T./297/P Bail granted.