2012 PLP 1194 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD AZIM KHAN AFRIDI, J.

Accused/petitioner, Ajmal Khan son of Misal Khan is seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.559, dated 22-11-2010 registered under sections 381-A/ 411/468/420/471, P.P.C. at Police Station Shahzad Town, Islamabad.

2. According to facts narrated and recorded in the F.I.R. complainant Mushtaq Ahmad son of Qurban Hussain is a permanent resident of Dhoke Hafiz Street No.1 Link Road Chaklala Rawalpindi and engaged in a private employment. It was on 6-5-2010 at 8-00 p.m. when he parked his Car No.LOA-8434 Alto Mehran Model 1990 Engine No.428459, Chassis No.323022 at Sabzi Mandi to have some purchases. On return after about 20 minutes, he found his car missing. He did not succeed in tracing out the same and as such lodged the report against unknown accused.

3. During the course of investigation, accused/petitioner Ajmal Khan was arrested while driving the alleged stolen car.

4. Learned counsel for the accused/ petitioner has argued that the accused/ petitioner is falsely implicated in the present case. That he was employed as a taxi driver by one Imdad Ullah who claims to be the owner of the said car. That the date of occurrence is shown as 6-5-2010 while report was lodged on 22-11-2010. That the offence is not hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.

5. Conversely, learned Standing counsel for the State argued that the accused/petitioner was arrested, while driving the stolen car. That he was charged in numerous other cases. That claim of ownership of the car by one Imdad Ullah would not entitle the accused/petitioner to the concession of bail.

6. Arguments heard. Record perused.

7. Accused/petitioner is not charged by name in the F.I.R. Accusation against the accused/petitioner is that of recovery of alleged stolen car which brings the case of the accused/petitioner within the ambit of section 411, P.P.C. According to investigation accused petitioner claims to be employed as taxi driver by one Imdadullah who claims ownership of the car recovered from the possession of accused/petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel for State, on query, conceded that the accused/petitioner is not a previous convict. It is yet to be established that the accused had either dishonestly received or retained the same knowingly or having reason to believe the same to be a stolen car. Thus the case of the accused/petitioner is that of further inquiry for the purpose of bail. Additionally, the offence attributed to accused/petitioner and punishable under section 411, P.P.C. carries punishment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both as such, the accused/petitioner is found entitled to the grant of bail. The application of the accused/petitioner for grant of bail is, therefore, accepted and it is directed that he be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 with two resourceful and reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate. M.W.A./46/Isl Bail granted.