' SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.-Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed this post-arrest bail on behalf of the petitioners who stands implicated in F.I.R. No. 1065 dated 25-10-2006. The said F.I.R.
Was registered at P.S. Sargodha Road, Faisalabad under section 489-B, P.P.C.
2. Briefly according to the F.I.R., on a secret information, petitioners were arrested from the Allied crossing. At the time of arrest 100 currency notes of Rs.500 and another 100 currency notes of Rs.
500 were recovered from both the petitioners respectively.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner contents of F.I.R. Itself show that the counterfeit currency notes were recovered from the petitioners possession and at the time of their arrest they were neither selling the same nor trafficking them, therefore, the case is covered by section 489-C instead of 489-B The learned counsel further submits that the newspaper "Daily Express" dated 22-10-2006 shows that petitioners were arrested by police on 21-10-2006 whereas, the instant F.I.R. Was registered on 25-10- 2006 and this also shows that the - occurrence took place on the same date i.e. 24-10-2006.
2. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab submits that challan in this case has already been submitted on 4-11-2006 and charge has also been framed,- therefore, this is not proper stage to release the petitioners on bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab. The contents of F.I.R. Show that petitioners were arrested while they were in possession of counterfeit currency notes and according to the recovery memo. 495 counterfeit currency, notes were recovered from them. Whether the case is covered by section 489-B or 489-C will be decided by the trial Court. However, the F.I.R. Shows that occurrence took place on 25-10- 2006 but the newspaper shows that they were arrested prior to 22-10-2006. This, conflict creates a doubt and provides reasonable grounds for further inquiry. Presence of doubt helps to the petitioners' case instead of prosecution's. Another fact is that in the recovery memo, only police officials are shown as recovery witnesses, that further makes the prosecution case doubtful for the purpose of bail.
7. As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, this bail application is allowed subject to petitioners' furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000 (five lacs) each with one surety each in the like ' amount to the satisfaction of trial Court/ Ilaqa Magistrate.