FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.-This is petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 21st December, 1994 of the learned High Court of Baluchistan, Quetta; whereby the bail application of the petitioners No,257 of 1994 for offences under section 411/420/465/467/468/471, P.P.C., was dismissed.
2. It may be pointed out that on 20-10-1994 Tajammal Shah, S.H.O of Crime Branch Police Station, Quetta; while checking Vehicles in R.C.D. Highway of Dhadar, about 20 miles from Quetta towards Jakob Abad Sibbi, stopped the Land Cruiser No,RG-3031 driven by Bakshal while Sikandar Ali was sitting in the vehicle. They were the residents of Shehdad Kot. The documents produced by Bakhshal regarding the vehicle were suspected, therefore, the occupants alongwith the vehicle were taken to Quetta where it transpired that the documents were forged and the vehicle was stolen property. A case was, therefore, registered against both Bakhshal and Sikandar Ali accused at Police Station Crimes Branch, Quetta.
3. Bakhshal accused during his police custody made a confessional statement in which he admitted that the vehicle was a stolen property and his services were acquired for transporting the same to deliver it to Jehangir. He further stated that even previously he had been delivering stolen cars to Shah Muhammad and Jehangir of Kuchlak. Both the petitioners were, therefore, arrested on 6-11-1994. Their bail application was rejected by the Sessions Judge on 30-11-1994 and that by the learned High Court by order dated 21-12-1994 against which leave to appeal is prayed for.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. His main argument addressed before us in challenging the order of the High Court is that excepting the confessional statement of main accused no other evidence has so far been collected to connect the petitioners with the commission of offence and furthermore that Sikandar Ali who was found accompanying the main accused has been granted bail, so on the principle of consistency and on facts of the case the learned High Court ought to have released the petitioners on bail. It was further argued that on the allegation made against the petitioners, the offence even if proved at the most would fall under section 411, P.P.C. Which does not come within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. We find no force in these arguments at this stage of the case when complete challenge has not been put in Court so far. On consideration of confessional statement the learned High Court had reached the conclusion that prima facie Bakhshal accused was a regular supplier of theft vehicles from Karachi to the petitioners under a regular scheme of commission of offences relating to car- lifting on forged documents. In this state of affairs we find no merit in this petition for grant of leave.
Petition is, therefore, dismissed.