Heard.
2. Raqias Shah son of Mehr Qias Shah, caste Shah resident of Shahbaz Shah Sheikhan, P.O. Shah Jahan, Tehsil and District Bannu, petitioner, has applied for his post-arrest bail in the case bearing F.I.R. No,23 of 2003, dated 21-2-2003 which stands registered under sections 468, 420, 471, P.P.C. With Police Station Daud Khel, Mianwali.
3. The allegation against the petitionerwas that on 19-2-2003 at 5-25 a.m. During checking in the area of Computer Check-Post Daud Khel, Plate bearing No,7070-LOZ fixed with Toyota Corolla Car in his possession and his co-accused Muhammad Shakil after verification was found to be bogus and at the time of checking, he was sitting on the front seat of the vehicle. So at the instance of Muhammad Ilyas Khan, S.-I. Incharge Computer Check Post Daud Khel, the abovesaid case was registered.
4. While refusing bail to the petitioner the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali observed that the petitioner posed himself as owner of the car, therefore, his case is not identical to his co- accused Muhammad Shakil who was simply driving the vehicle. It was further observed that the number plate fixed with the vehicle after verification was found to be of 70-CC Honda owned by one Faqir Ahmad.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case; that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that the case of the petitioner is identical to his co-accused, therefore, he is also entitled for bail and that the petitioner is not a previous convict. He further argued that there is no exceptional circumstance to refuse bail to the petitioner, which has been opposed by the learned State Counsel who submitted that the vehicle in possession of the petitioner and his co-accused was having a bogus number plate, therefore, it is not a fit case for bail.
6. During arguments it transpired that the vehicle in question is in the custody of the police and that the petitioner is not a previous convict. The allegation against him is that he posed himself to be the owner of the car which at present is an oral version and when the trial is conducted at that stage his case shall be at par to his co-accused and as to why not at this stage because the person who was driving the vehicle was in command of the vehicle or in other words in possession of the same, therefore, there is no exceptional circumstances to refuse bail to the petitioner.
7. Consequently the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing surety bond in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
' Petition is hereby accepted.