1. ' The facts according to F. I. R. Lodged on 22nd October, 1979, by one Muhammad Z. Man at Police Station Mebmoodabad of Karachi, are that be works as a driver and resides along with his cousin Muhammad Amin who is an employee of N.S.C. Both the brothers after locking their house, proceeded to their work at about 8-00 a.m. When he returned at 2-00 p.m. For taking lunch, he found main entrance door of his house open. He entered his house and saw that a person with a tape-recorder of his cousin in his hand was standing and on seeing him he started running. The complainant tried to stop him but he gave a jerk/push to him and as a result of it he fell down, whereas that person ran away alongwith the tape-recorder to a "gali". The complainant cried "thief" ! "thief !" and followed him. Messrs Abdul Rehman, Ghulam Rasool and Baboo Sultan who are his neighbors, ran after that person on hearing his hue and cry. The police party consisting of Head Constable, Khushhal, Muzaffar Khan and Muhammad Zahir were also coming from the opposite direction who heard hue and cry and cordoned off that person and caught hold of him. Abdul Rehman took tape-recorder from him which he brought to Police Station and lodged the report.
2. The name of that person was disclosed to be "Tariq Mahmood" the present applicant who broke open the door and committed the theft.
3. ' The police after usual investigation sent up the applicant to stand trial under section 9 of Hudood Ordinance, 1979.
4. ' The bail application was moved on behalf of the applicant before the learned VI-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, who by his order dated 17th November 1979, rejected it on the ground that he was arrested on the spot by public and policemen, therefore a prima facie case was made out against him.
5. ' The learned counsel for the applicant, contends that the tape-recorder being a musical- instrument, it would not attract "Hadd" according to section 10-D of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and would fall under an ordinary section of Pakistan Penal Code. He also contends that the circumstances under which he was shown to have been apprehended are suspicious as it seldom happens when police party is attracted on the cries during the day time and therefore it requires further inquiry.
6. ' The learned Additional Advocate-General concedes that no, "Hadd" would apply in this case.
7. Moreover alleged property has already been recovered from the applicant also the mariner in which he has been arrested requires further inquiry and he therefore has no objection for grant of bail.
8. After having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and state, I feel that there are circumstances which require further inquiry as contemplated by clause (2) of section 497, Cr. P. C.
9. The offence on the face of it would not fall under, "Hadd" as defined in section 10-D of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. Therefore without going into the merits of the case, I grant bail to the applicant, who shall be released on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 5,000 and P. R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.