ORDER SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.--Sami Ullah, petitioner was arrested by the police on 23-9-2010 in connection with case F.I.R. No.359, dated 23-9-2010, under sections 379/411, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Kahuta, District Rawalpindi, on the complaint of Muhammad Farooq.
2. Briefly, the prosecution case as contained in the F.I.R. Is, that the complainant along with others had installed an electric transformer valued at Rs.2,25,000 for supply of water to the co-villagers which was stolen by some unknown accused; on receiving this information, the complainant along with other members of Water Supply Committee, reached the place of occurrence at 8-00 a.m. On 23-9-2010 and found the abovesaid transformer having been stolen; in the latter half of the F.I.R. It has been alleged by the complainant that he along with others searched for the removers of the transformer and through their personal probe they learnt that Muhammad Waqas, an employee of Wapda, Asad Wasim, Nadeem, Shahzad, Sami Ullah (petitioner) and Anjum Nawaz, all residents of Kahuta had committed the theft of the transformer, being in league with Muhammad Waqas, another Wapda employee and that they had taken away the transformer by loading it on a dumper/vehicle TKV-175. - The complainant hinted at another allegation qua theft of electric cable worth Rs.70,000 and he showed his suspicion against the above-said accused.
3. The police intercepted a dumper/ vehicle TKV-175 on 23-9-2010 at Bhoon Road, Link Rawalpindi- Kahuta Road wherein the stolen transformer was loaded and the accused-petitioner along with his above-named co-accused was seated therein.
4. Muhammad Farooq-complainant, Muhammad Fazal-P.W, Muhammad Ayub Chaudhry-PW and Ch. Muhammad Shafat P.W. Have submitted their sworn affidavits contending therein that Sami Ullah petitioner was the driver of the dumper TKV-175, and that his co-accused Anjum Nawaz was the conductor of the said vehicle. They have further deposed that they had no objection to the acceptance of the bail application of the petitioner and his consequential release on bail. Their affidavits mark 'A' to mark 'D' are placed on the record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an inordinate delay of 24 hours in lodgment of the F.I.R. And the complainant has not offered any plausible explanation in this regard; section 379, P.P.C. Is punishable with imprisonment of three years and does not catch the prohibitory provisions of section 497, Cr.P.C.; the evidence regarding recovery of the transformer is not admissible as the record prepared by the police shows a joint recovery at the instance of all the accused mentioned in the F.I.R.; the petitioner was a driver of the above-said vehicle and in presence of some Wapda officials he could not suspect the intent and credentials of the accused who paid him the rent to transfer the aforesaid electric gadget to some other place; the petitioner is a non- convict and has not been involved in any criminal case in the past; the investigation stands completed and he is no more required for the purpose of further investigation.
6. Conversely, learned D.P.-G. Opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner but has done so in a lukewarm manner because of the affidavits submitted by the above-named deponents.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The complainant and the above-said prosecution witnesses have contended in their sworn affidavits mark 'A' to mark 'D' that the accused-petitioner was the driver of the vehicle/dumper No.TKV-175 and his co-accused Anjum Nawaz was the conductor of the said vehicle. Muhammad Waqas, co-accused is a Wapda employee whereas Asad Wasim co-accused was an ex-Wapda official. According to the investigation conducted by the police both Muhammad Waqas and Asad Wasim had got de- installed the above-said transformer in the company of their co-accused, loaded it on the dumper, driven by the accused-petitioner and took it away. They were on way to a certain destination when their vehicle was intercepted by the police on a barrier/blockade. The accused petitioner A and his co-accused were hauled up by the police then and there and the stolen transformer was taken into custody by the police through a recovery memo. While disallowing the bail application of the co-accused of the petitioner on 22-10-2010, it was observed by this Court that accused Anjum Nawaz had failed to hint at any evidence as to his Contention of being conductor of the above- said vehicle. The situation has undergone a change in view of the statements of Muhammad Farooq and those of the other P. Ws. Who have categorically admitted as to the plea of the accused, being the driver of the above-said vehicle, The presence of the above-said Wapda employees at the time of the alleged occurrence might have been taken as a circumstance by the petitioner that they being officials of Wapda were authorized to dc-install the transformer and shift the same to some other place. In this situation, the case of the petitioner, prima facie, constitutes need for further inquiry into his guilt within the scope of section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
8. For what has been discussed above, the instant application is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.