2000 P Cr (PLP)

The petitioner stands charged for having committed an offence punishable under section 419/420/411, P.P.C. vide F.I.R. No.606, dated 17-7-1999 registered at Police Station Tangi, District Charsadda.

2. After his arrest he applied for bail but the Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Tangi (Mr. Ashfaq Taj) on 21-9-1999 and the Additional Sessions Judge, Charsadda (Mr. Fayyazullah Khan) vide his order, dated 27-9-1999 refused to enlarge him on bail. The Additional Sessions Judge while deciding the bail petition observed as under:-- "Perusal of the record would reveal that the Motor Car No.339-ST was the ownership of one Muhammad Aslam of Rawalpindi. The same was stolen from him, who lodged a report in Police Station Banni, Rawalyindi on 24-5-1993 regarding the missinre of his car. Later on the local police of Police Station Tangi received information regarding the parking of the said car with the accused petitioner in village Nusrat Zai who proceeded to the said place and recovered the same from the possession of the accused-petitioner. After the recovery the motor car in question was sent to the Laboratory for examination and its chassis number was found as KE 55-007130 while the number mentioned in the report of the original owner namely Muhammad Aslam is KE 55-067130 which means that the chassis number of the said car has been tampered by the accused-petitioner. The Investigating Officer visited the Office of Motor Registering Authority, Sialkot and the car in question was found entered in the relevant record. The car in question has been recovered from the direct possession of the accused-petitioner. The P.Ws. have fully supported the prosecution case. In the circumstances there exists a prima facie case against the accused petitioner which disentitles him from the concession of bail."

3. The learned counsel for the parties agreed that on merits, the petitioner has no case at all. However, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the case of the petitioner does not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, bail and not the jail should be the rule. .

4. I tend to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner because the case of the petitioner does not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, he is admitted to bail and shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case, provided, he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rs. two lacs) with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Additional/Deputy Registrar of this Court.

5. The Additional Registrar/Deputy Registrar shall see that the sureties are respectable persons, hail from the settled areas of District Charsadda and have sufficient property in their names. Attested copies of their property documents/identity cards shall be obtained and placed on file for record. N.H.Q./4/P Bail allowed.