CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.- The petitioner is involved in a case F.I.R. No. 232 which was registered at Police Station Lodhran originally under Sections 457 380. And subsequently Section 411 PPC was added as the stolen property was allegedly recovered from the petitioner on 24-9-1996 in the presence of Abdul Majeed and Javed Iqbal.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner contended that the contents of the F.I.R, did not reveal that the petitioner actually committed the offence except that the stolen property was recovered from his house in the presence of the above- mentioned witnesses, so the petitioner committed offence under Section 411 P.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that petitioner was arrested on 24- 9-1996 and the statutory period has already been elapsed and the petitioner entitled to be released on bail.
3. The learned State counsel opposed the bail petition by tooth and nail and controverted :he contention of learned counsel of the petitioner; that the petitioner was arrested on 6-12-1996 instead of 24-9-1996 under instructions. He further argued that the challan has already been submitted on 8-12-1996. Investigating Officer, stated that no evidence has been brought on record regarding the commission of offence by the petitioner, that nobody has seen him while committing the theft except the recovery of stolen property from the petitioner.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is admitted fact that the learned State counsel did not refute that the petitioner was involved in any other case, therefore, case of the petitioner does not fall under Section 497 (Proviso four) Cr.P.C. The ingredients of Sections 457 and 380 PPC are not attracted on the basis of the evidence collected by the prosecution and the contents of F.I.R, did not reveal that the petitioner committed offence under Sections 457 and 380 PPC. The only offence which was committed by the petitioner allegedly falls under Section 411 PPC and the punishment for that offence is three years, therefore, the case does not fall under prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. It is also admited fact that the trial has not yet been commenced. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has laid down the principle in Abdul Malik's cast; that bail cannot be withheld as punishment (PLD 1968 S.C, 349) and same view has beat taken in Manzoor Ahmed's case (P.L.D.
1972 S.C. 81).
5. In view of what has been discussed above this bail application is accepted and the petitioner is granted bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum Rs. 2 hut (rupees to lacs) with one surely in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
6. This criminal miscellaneous application is accepted but the trial Court at the time of trial will not be influenced by the observation of this Court. Disposed of accordingly.