1. ' Both these Criminal Bail Applications are interconnected and common questions of facts and law are involved in these applications. Hence the same are disposed of by this single order.
2. ' Bill Application No.384 of 2005 arises out of Crime No.26 of 2005, registered with Police Station Taluka Nawabshah, under section 379, P.P.C. Read with section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. In nutshell, the prosecution story of the crime is that on 18-4-2005 at 1205 hours on an information; complainant Karim Bux, a Line Superintendent of Society Sub-Division WAPDA arrived adjacent Bhriya College Deh 26 Dad, adjacent link road running between Nawabshah to Kazi Ahmed and found that three Dock Conductors Wires were stolen and they found foot-prints and marks of wheel of a Donkey cart at that place. Accordingly a blind F.I.R. Against unknown thieves was lodged on 28-4-2005.
3. ' In nutshell, prosecution story of Crime No.36 of 2005, registered with Police Station 'B' section Nawabshah are that complainant Muhammad Ishaque, a Line Superintendent on receipt of information that the property viz: the wires (property of above-mentioned Crime No.26 of 2005), were available in the shops of applicants Muhammad Younis and Muhammad Saleem Bhatti, reached there along with police on 2-5-2005 and recovered 20 bags of conductor wires of which some were in the shape of coils and some were cut in pieces. Accordingly both the applicants were arrested and F.I.R. Was registered against them on the same day.
4. ' Contention of Syed Madad Ali Shah learned counsel for applicants in both the applications are that there is no eye-witness against the applicant to say that applicants were responsible for theft of wires in question. His further contention is that the wires, if any, allegedly recovered from shop of applicants are available in the market and in case, they were recovered from their shop it cannot be said that the same I.C.A. No.75 of 2005 in W.P. No.4756 of 2004, decided on 10th May, 2005. Are those which were stolen as alleged against them; moreso, in view of the fact that neither in the F.I.R.
5. No.36 of 2005 it is stated that the stolen property, on recovery was found to be the same; that property was not put to identification of the complainant and other employees of WAPDA and that the mashirs of recovery are WAPDA employees though the place of recovery is located in a market and independent private witnesses could have been made available which casts doubts about the prosecution story and make the case of applicants, of further inquiry. Mr. Shah argues that even otherwise offences in both the crimes do not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.
6. Hence the applicants are entitled to the grant of bail as in cases falling not within prohibitory clause it is settled that the accused/applicants be normally released on bail.
7. ' On the other hand Mr. Rasheed Ahmed Qureshi, learned Assistant A.-G., has opposed the bail plea of the applicants. He has, however, not controverted the factual aspects of the matter as submitted by Mr. Shah.
8. Since there is no eye-vitness of the theft of the property in question, the offence does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And in view of the above-stated facts it is yet to be determined if the property recovered from applicants is the one which was stolen as alleged, in my view, the case against applicants require further inquiry. Accordingly applicants are admitted to bail in both the cases subject to their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one lac) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
9. Bail .Granted.