' Making the allegation about the theft of seven number of trees from Burji No,179-L by Khadim Hussain and Ali Sher petitioners-accused which were recovered from the saw machine of Ali Sher petitioner-accused; Muhammad Nawaz, Forest Guard, Canal Jhang Branch got recorded F.I.R.
No,251 on 23-11-1998 under section 379/ 441, Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Nawan Lahore, District Toba Tek Singh. Both of them were arrested on 24-11-1998 whose bail plea has been rejected by the learned lower Courts. They have filed this petition before this Court to try their luck to be admitted to bail.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned State counsel and gone through the record before me. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are that discriminatory treatment cannot be afforded to the petitioners on the ground that they are involved in a case of theft of Government property as expressed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and that the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause and, thus, the grant of bail in this case is a rule. On the contrary learned State counsel laid the emphasis that the stolen property owned by the Government was taken into possession from the saw machine of Sher Ali petitioner- accused where Khadim Hussain worked and that they are not entitled to be admitted to bail. I would express that the reasoning adopted by the learned counsel for the petitioners has to prevail.
According to the law of the land the bail application has to be disposed within the framework of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure. Both sections 379 and 411 of Pakistan Penal Code do not fall within the prohibitory clause and according to the ruling printed as Tariq Bashir and 5 others v.
The State (PLD 1995 SC 34) if the offence does not fall within the prohibit dry clause the acceptance of the bail of the accused is a rule and its rejection, an exception. The fact that- the case property is owned by the Government is not enough for the rejection of the bail plea of the petitioners. It has been held in Sarfraz and 2 others v. The State (PLD 1974 Lahore 196) that the fact that the Government property or the national interest is involved in a case is no ground by itself for the refusal of bail and that such considerations ordinarily are not the bar to grant the bail as there is no such prohibition in subsection (1) of section 497 Code of Criminal Procedure. The aforesaid ruling was relied upon in Noor Khan v. The State (1995 PCr.LJ 1179 Lahore) of which I am the author.
3. It is the admitted position that the stolen property has been recovered, the police investigation is complete and the petitioners are in the judicial lock-up. In the circumstances it is held that it is a fit case to admit both the petitioners to bail than to be retained in jail particularly when the 'Eid' festival is just in the offing.
4. For what, has been said above, I accept this application and admit both Khadim Hussain and Ali Sher petitioners-accused to bail in the sum of Rs,10,000 (Rs,ten thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Area Magistrate with the direction to appear before the learned Trial Court on every date of hearing failing which the learned Trial Court may cancel the bail of the absentee accused person(s).