' RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J.--- Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,275 of 2008, dated 9-7-2008, offence under sections 395, 458, 412 of P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Shehzad Town, Islamabad.
2. Precisely, allegation against the accused/petitioner is that he along with other co-accused entered the house of complainant through "Mumty" and snatched gold ornaments weighing 17 Tolas, 2 Cameras, four watches, prize bonds worth Rs,20,000 cash amount 50,000 and 5 mobile phones at gun point, hence this case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been involved in this case with mala fide intention and ulterior motive; that he is not nominated in the F.I.R.; that alleged recovery has been effected from the house of petitioner, which is highly doubtful; that essentials of section 103 were not fulfilled at the time of recovery. Investigation of the case is complete and petitioner is no more required by police for further probe. He is behind the bars for the last 7 months. There is a delay of 5 days in registration of case, which is fatal for the prosecution. Recovery of one mobile phone has been effected from one of the co-accused namely Faisal, who has been granted post- arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad. Case of the petitioner is at par with him. In view of rule of consistency, petitioner is also entitled for the same relief. No independent witness has been associated in the recovery proceedings and recovery witnesses are police officials.
4. On the other hand, learned Federal Counsel has opposed the bail on the ground that looted items were recovered from the petitioner, which is a strong piece of evidence and during investigation, it is disclosed that they remained involved in other cases of similar nature.
5. I have heard loth the learned counsel and perused the record.
6. Petitioner was arrested after getting the record of stolen mobile phones. During investigation, recovery of looted articles i,e, bangles, cash and cell phones has been effected from the petitioner and those articles were duly identified by the complainant of the case.
7. No enmity comes on record to falsely implicate the present petitioner. Record reveals that he is also involved in number of other cases of similar nature. Petitioner seems to be a habitual offender.
8. Deeper appreciation is not warranted under the law at bail stage and only bird's eye view is to be made. There is sufficient material available on the record to believe that petitioner has committed the offence, which falls under the prohibitory clause, of section 497 of Cr.P.C. Challan has been submitted in the Court.
9. For what has been discussed above, I am not inclined to accept this petition, same is dismissed accordingly.