SAJJAD AHMED SIPRA, J. - The learned counsel for the petitioner has not put in appearance, but as it is an old case that has been pending because of the non-availability of the present Bench, therefore, it has been taken up for further proceedings with the help of the learned counsel for the State.
2. Through the present petition, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in the case registered vide FIR No. 163/96 dated 28.6.1996 under section 380/457/411 PPC at Police Station Ghalib Market, Lahore.
3. The present case has been adjourned on 3.10.1996 for the production of I lie file pertaining to Crl.
Misc. No. 764-H/96, as a reference had been made thereto by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the said date to press the contention that the police was acting with mala fides against the present petitioner. The perusal of the orders passed din the said habeas corpus petition has highlighted the fact that the bailiff had been deputed for the recovery of the alleged detenu/present petitioner, Yaqoob Masih. But he could not do so, as is recorded in the order dated 3.7.1996 passed therein, because the alleged detenu/present petitioner had been duly arrested in the case registered vide FIR No. 240/96 dated 2.7.1996 under section 13/20/65 Arms Ordinance i.e. On the previous date of hearing, lt has been taken notice of that the Court had disposed of the said habeas corpus petition vide (he same order dated 3.7.1996 by allowing bail to the alleged -detenu in the sum of Rs. 1000/- in the said case, as it was a bailable offence, while directing that the alleged detenue may move the relevant Court for bail in respect of the other offences in the case already registered, but no reference had been made to any specific FIR in that respect nor had it been recorded in the said order that any recoveries had been effected from the present petitoner/detenu in any case registered against him. In that respect, it may be recorded at this stage that the perusal of the record produced in the instant, case has brought to the notice of the Court that the alleged recoveries from the present, petitioner had been effected on 2.7.1996 i.e. On the same date when the said habeas corpus petition had been heard by my learned brother Abdul Hafiz Cheema, J. And a bailiff was deputed.
4. Therefore, it is hereby observed that the circumstances highlighted above lend strength to the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner that the police conduct in the instant case was not beyond suspicion in the manner that the petitioner had been taken into custody and subsequently dealt with. It has been further taken notice of, as established by the perusal of the FIR in question that the petitioner is not specifically named in the same and that, therefore prima facie, the case against him, at best, is one of the alleged recovery of stolen goods under the provisions of section 411 PPC! And that the punishment for the said offence is not hit by the prohibitory clause. Therefore, without commenting on. The merits of the case, the tentative observation is to the effect that under the facts and circumstances highlighted above, the case of the petitioner is duly covered under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. It has been further confirmed on behalf of the State that the petitioner is neither a previous convict nor hardened criminal and that he has been in the judicial custody for almost seven months and is no longer required by the police.
5. Therefore, the petitioner is hereby allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
6. The petitioner be informed of the present order in jail.