' This order will dispose this bail petition filed by the petitioner seeking bail after arrest in case F.I.R.
No.97 of 2004 dated 13-3-2004 registered under sections 381-A/420, P.P.C. With Police Station, Multan Cantt.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the above said F.I.R. Was registered on the complaint of Mumtaz Hussain, wherein it is stated by the complainant that on 10-3-2004 he was present in his house; at 1-15 p.m. On the call of his cousin Muhammad Qasim, he went to emergency ward of Nishtar Hospital, Multan; when he reached to the hospital he met his cousin Muhammad Qasim, Faiz Muhammad and one unknown person, who was speaking Saraiki Language. He asked Muhammad Qasim to go with him in search of some doctor. He and Muhammad Qasim took motorcycle of the complainant and left the place. After some time Muhammad Qasim came back and told the complainant that, the present petitioner, who took the motorcycle left him alone on the pretext to bring the doctor. Thereafter, he never came back. The petitioner's application for bail after arrest filed before the Sessions Judge, Multan was heard and dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Multan on 7-10-2004. Hence this bail petition.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent. He was servant of the complainant on daily wages. He purchased the disputed motorcycle from Mumtaz Hussain, complainant in lieu of Rs.27,000 and paid him Rs.16,000 as advance money, and possession of motorcycle was given to him by the petitioner and the balance of amount was to be paid to the complainant on 7-3-2004. The complainant with mala fide intention withheld the registration book of the motorcycle and refused to issue the transfer letter to the petitioner. On 7-3- 2004, the petitioner approached the complainant to receive balance amount and to deliver the aforesaid document but the complainant told the petitioner that he had changed his mind and did not want to sell the motorcycle. The petitioner requested him to pay back the amount received in advance but he insisted that he would return the motor-cycle first and thereafter the payment would be made to him Thereafter, the petitioner refused to return the motorcycle and went way. It is further contended that there is delay of four days in lodging the F.I.R. Which afterthought. There is no eye-witness other than co-related of complainant, therefore, the case of the petitioner falls within the purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. And is that of further inquiry.
4. Learned counsel for the State argued that the petitioner was arrested on 18-8-2004 and the stolen property stand recovered from his house on 20-8-2004. He is a desperate hardened and dangerous criminal; had been involved in more than 25 criminal cases stand registered against him in difference police stations. The version taken by the petitioner is not supported by any documentary evidence nor he had produced any witness in this regard, regarding title of stolen property.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply to the query raised by my learned brother Jawwad S. Khawaja, J. About the fate of 25 criminal cases registered against petitioner states that petitioner has been acquitted in all cases. But learned counsel has failed to produce any discharge order passed by competent Court of law in respect of above said criminal cases. He further argued that involvement of accused in number of cases, is not sufficient to deprive him of his liberty. Further argued that grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. Further argued that the guilt on the part of the petitioner is to be proved through *trial and the petitioner cannot be detained in jail for indefinite period without proving his guilt, hence he is entitled to be granted bail. He has placed reliance on Muhammad Rafique v. The State 1997 SCM R 412.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as State counsel and have perused the record produced by the police official. No doubt, in these mitigating circumstances regarding involvement of petitioner in number of criminal cases is not sufficient to deprive him of his right of liberty. The prosecution has also failed to establish this assertion that in either case as mentioned above, the petitioner had been convicted and sentenced by competent Court of law.
7. As regards the recovery of stolen property prima facie it amounts to a civil transaction between the parties and is to be proved through evidence which is to be B preferred before the trial Court.
The petitioner is no more required for the purpose of investigation and as regards the trial which is not in progress.
8. In these circumstances, the case of the petitioner falls within the purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. And is that of further inquiry. The offence allegedly committed by petitioner does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause. The petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned.