' Petitioner is charged for committing an offence punishable under Article 9/14 of the Offences Against Property read with section 411, P.P.C. Police Station Banter. After being refused the concession of bail to him he has come to this Court for the said relief.
2. The case of prosecution is that complainant who is laboring at Islamabad was informed there that a theft has been committed in his house, On arrival at his house he was informed by his brother's wife that she noticed that theft has been committed in his house during night in between 23/24-8-1998. After checking the house hold articles he found the articles mentioned in the F.I.R.
Missing from the house. He charged the accused-petitioner after due satisfaction. On the following day of the registration of the case accused-petitioner was arrested, who led the police party for the recovery of stolen articles and at his potation in presence of marginal witnesses the stolen property was recovered. The accused-petitioner has also confessed his guilt before the M.I.C. And an elaborate confessional statement was recorded after compliance of required formalities.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case, the alleged recovery was planted against him and the confession of accused-petitioner is the result of coercion and duress. Investigation in the case has already been completed and the petitioner is no more required for investigation. The offence for which the petitioner is charged does not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr. P.0 .
4. Learned counsel for the complainant refuted the contention of the opposite side and submits that prima facie the petitioner is guilty of the commission of offence. The petitioner is a habitual offender. He was also arrested in case F.I.R. No,273, dated 2-10-1997 for committing the theft and the stolen articles were recovered from his possession. Petitioner is a habitual offender and irrespective of the fact that the offence for which he is charged is carrying punishment lesser than 10 years but in non-boilable offences bail is not right of an accused person. The investigation in the case has been completed and direction could be made for submission of complete challah to the Court. The learned State Counsel opposed the concession of bail to the petitioner.
5. After hearing the learned counsel at the Bar and perusal of the record arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner is reasonably connected with the commission of offence. The prosecution case reveals that lurking house trespass punishable under section 457, P.P.C. Has been committed by the petitioner therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. The prosecution agency is directed to submit complete challan in the case within 15 days against the accused- petitioner in the Court of competent jurisdiction.
6. With these observations the petition for bail is dismissed.