MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The petitioners/accused were booked for the above offences vide FIR No, 73/2016 registered under sections 489(B) and 489(C) at Police Station City Gilgit.
1. The brief facts of the occurrence have been narrated in the impugned judgment passed by Icarned Sessions Judge Gilgit vide his judgment dated 18.08.2016, which are reproduced verbatim:- - "The allegations as per FIR are that on 27.07.2016 at 06:30 a.m. the complainant namely ASIP Ahmed Ali received a secret information that the above named petitioners are residing in room No,119 Skyways Hotel Gilgit and they were in possession of huge fake/counterfeit currency notes.
On receipt of this information, the complainant and his companions namely Syed Hussain HC, Muhammad Qudoos, Wajahat Hussain, Israr Ahmed and Iqbal Amin FCs proceeded to Skyways Hotel Gilgit and allegedly recovered forged/counterfeit 28 numbers currency notes Rs, 5000/-from the possession of Alam Zaib, twenty fake currency notes of Rs,1000/- from the possession of petitioner/accused Abid Ali, sixteen fake currency notes of Rs,1000/- from the possession of act used/petitionerRasheedullah and one fake currency note of Rs, 5000/- from the possessions Raees Khan. The recovered fake/counterfeit currency notes were sent to National Bank of Pakistan Gilgit for verification. The expert officers of National Bank Gilgit branch also declared the. aforesaid recovered currency notes as forged/counteifeit currency notes."
The petitioners/accused applied for bail in the Court of Sessions Judge Gilgit which was declined vide order dated 18.08.20016 and being dis-satisfied from the said judgment the petitioners/accused have approached this Court for the same relief.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that there is inordinate delay of three hours in lodging the FIR and this delay has been consumed in cooking up a false story and to fix criminal liability on each accused. The learned counsel for petitioners/accused contended that section 489(C) is bailable, while section 489(B), P.P.C. is not hit by the prohibitory clauses of section 497, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel further contended that when an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clauses of section 497, Cr.P.C., grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception and per learned counsel the exception enumerated in PLD 1995 SC 34 are not applicable in the case in hand. The discretion exercised in refusing bail by the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit is not proper and bail be allowed to the petitioners/accused. The learned counsel relied on 2000 M LD 1056, (Rashid v. The State), 2000 PCr.LJ 594 (Mumtaz Hussain v. The State) 2000 PCr.LJ 834 (Zafar Iqbal v.
State) PLD 1993 Peshawar 104 in support of their contention.
4. On the other hand the learned Deputy Advocate General stated at bar that the offence under section 489(B) falls within the prohibitory clauses of section 497, Cr.P.C, and further that the petitioners/accused are involved in an offence which is of a heinous nature and also an offence against society. The petitioners were arrest from a Hotel and a huge quantity of forged currency notes were recovered from their possession. Per Dy. Advocate General there is no ill will or anomisty on the part of police and the petitioners/accused are not entitled for concession of bail.
5. After hearing both the parties and a tentative assessment of record, it is apparent on record that the Sky ways hotel was raided by the police on spy information and the petitioners were arrested from room No, 119, of the said Hotel and on their personal search a huge quantity of forged currency was recovered, which was sent to the National Bank of Pakistan for expert opinion and the same were certified as "forged" vide letter dated 27.07.2016 addressed to SHO PS City Gilgit.
6. Now it is a well settled principal of law that when an offence is hit by the prohibitory clauses of section 497, Cr.P.C. the accused cannot claim himself as a right and grant of bail in such like is discretionary and as the bail applications are not decided in vacuum, the material so for collected by the prosecution in the shape of statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and recovery if any could be examined tentatively to form an opinion that there exists a prima facie case against the accused or not. By applying the principle of tentative assessment of evidentiary value of the material placed before the court, for grant/ refusal of bail is a discretion but when the offences relates to an offence against society, the discretion should be exercised with an extra care and caution and with some restraint.
7. From the tentative assessm ent of the material in the hands of prosecution, there exist a prima facie case against the petitioner and more so huge fake currency has been recovered from their possession, they are not entitled for the concession of bail.
8. The petition is declined being meritless.