' MALIK SHAHZAD AHMAD KHAN, J.---Umar Hayat (the petitioner) has moved the instant petition under section 498 of Cr.P.C. For grant of bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No,739, dated 19-8-2011, registered under sections 457, 380, 411 of P.P.C., read with section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979, with Police Station, Satellite Town, District Sargodha.
2. As per brief allegations levelled in the F.I.R., the petitioner along with his co-accused committed theft of different articles of the complainant from his house. The allegations of receiving stolen property dishonestly have also been levelled against the petitioner by the prosecution; hence, the above mentioned F.I.R.
3. The petitioner filed his petition for bail before arrest, before the learned Additional. Sessions Judge, Sargodha, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 13-9-2011, hence, the present petition before this Court.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has, falsely been implicated in this case with mala fide intention of the complainant; that in fact, the petitioner is shopkeeper of scrap articles and he purchased the articles belonging to the complainant with boa fides and at the most the provisions of section 411 of P.P.C.' are attracted, which offence does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497 of Cr.P.C; that the co-accused of the petitioner namely Muhammad Yasin has been granted bail after arrest by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, vide his order dated 8-5-2011, therefore, applying the rule of consistency the petitioner is also entitled to the same concession, therefore, the petitioner may be granted bail before arrest.
5. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, for the State assisted by the complainant, in person, has seriously opposed this bail application on the grounds that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R.; that the petitioner knowingly purchased the articles belonging to the complainant; that the petitioner could not establish any mala fide on the part of the complainant, which is a condition precedent for grant of bail before arrest; that the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the prosecution version in their statements recorded under section 161 of, Cr.P.C, therefore, this petition may be dismissed. '
6. Arguments heard and record perused.
7. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. The allegation of commission of theft of different articles from the house of the complainant has been levelled against the petitioner. The statements of two prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Asad and Faheem Khan have been recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C., according to which, the petitioner has confessed his guilt A regarding the commission of theft in the house of the complainant. The stolen articles are yet to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner could not establish any mala fide .On, the part of the, complainant for his false involvement in the instant case, which is a condition precedent for the 'grant of bail before arrest.
8. In the light of above discussion, this petition having no merits is dismissed and ad interim pre- arrest bail already ' granted to the 'petitioners by this Court on 20-9-2011 is hereby recalled and withdrawn.
9. It is, however, clarified that the observations made in this order are tentative in nature and shall cause no prejudice to the case of either party at the time of decision of other issues involved in the present case or at the time of final adjudication of the case before the learned trial court.