' A case under section 381-A, P.P.C. Is registered against the petitioner on the ground that a stolen motor -cycle was recovered at his instance.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that investigation in this case was conducted by Munir Ahmad, A.S.-I., C.I.A., Gulberg, Lahore who was not competent to conduct the same in violation of the principle laid down in State through Advocate-General, Sindh v. Bashir and others reported as PLD 1997 SC 408. As such it was alleged that investigation in this case is void ab initio.
3. Secondly it was contended that recovery was not evidenced. By independent persons as such it was effected in violation of the 'provisions contained in section 103, Cr.P.C.
4. Lastly it was ,contended that provisions of section 381-A, P.P.C. Were not attracted to the facts of this case as the same would fall within the ambit of section 411, P.P.C., which offence is not within the prohibitory clause, and that the mere fact the petitioner is involved in a number of such cases should not be sufficient to deprive him of his right of bail. Reliance was placed on Muhammad Mumtaz and 2 others v. The State reported as 1996 SCM R 512 (Supreme Court of Pakistan).
5. Bail was opposed on the ground that the instant case was registered at the report of the owner of the stolen motor-cycle namely Muhammad Ramzan at Police Station, Misrishah, Lahore which was, thereafter, sent for investigation to the C.I.A., Gulberg, Lahort. With the order' of competent Authority i,e, S.S.P., Lahore vide his order, dated 9-9-1998. As such it was contended that the principle laid down in PLD 1997 SC 408 was not attracted to the facts of the instant case. Secondly it was contended that there are a number of cases against the petitioner in which he has been involved for committing similar type of occurrences, such as stealing of motor-cycles. It was contended that the principle laid down in 1996 SCM R 512 was not applicable to the facts of this case as during a short span of period at least 4 occurrences of similar nature were committed by the petitioner.
6. I have considered the foregoing fact and find that the present case was registered at the report of the owner of the stolen motor-cycle namely Muhammad Ramzan and was later on sent for investigation to the C.I.A., Gulberg, Lahore by the competent Authority as pointed out above. As such investigation in this case was not defective nor it contravened the principle laid down in PLD 1997 SC 408 as even according to that authority the transfer of investigation to C.I.A. Could be made by the competent Authority and in the instant case the same was done by the S.S.P., Lahore, who was undisputedly competent to transfer such investigation. Likewise the mere fact that recovery was affected in presence of police employees would not 'become worthless at bail stage.
Needless to say that police employees are also competent witnesses under the law if they have evidenced the recovery. Their credibility like other witnesses can be evaluated at the time of trial.
The sequence of the present occurrence would show that the petitioner, who is running a workshop for repairing motor-cycles is involved in 3 cases of similar nature vide F.I.R. No,292, dated 19-8-1998 registered at Police Station, Misrishah, Lahore, F.I.R. No,349, dated 2-9-1998 and F.I.R. No,355, dated 10-9-1998 both registered at Police Station Shadbagh, Lahore in which the petitioner and one other were involved for stealing motor-cycles. It, therefore, appears that the petitioner and his co- accused were working as a gang for stealing motor-cycles on different occasions and as such being habitual offender should not be released on bail for the time being in the public interest. This petition is accordingly dismissed.