' Both the bail applications i,e, Criminal Miscellaneous No,1182 of 1998 (Nisar Ahmad alias Nisar v.
The State) and Criminal Miscellaneous No,1145 of 1998 (Bahar Ali son of Fazal Gul and Khan Muhammad son of Jan Muhammad v. The State), arise out of F.I.R. No,13, dated 12-9-1998, Police Station C.I.D., Peshawar under section 419/420/468/471/34, P P. G . Have been preferred by the aforesaid petitioners against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar, dated 26-9-1998, whereby their prayers for bail was not acceded to. As both the petitions arise out of the same F.I.R.
And against the same oilier of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, I propose to dispose them of by this single judgment.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on prior information Aziz Muhammad Khan, Inspector, C.I.D., Peshawar obtained search warrants for conducting raid on the Printing Press as well as the house of Nisar petitioner situate in Qissa Khawani Bazar, Peshawar on 12-9-1998 under section 98, Cr.P.C. It was alleged that the petitioner Nisar was dealing in the printing of forged documents, certificates and stamp papers, Driving licenses etc., and after preparing the same were distributing through his agents in different parts of the country. The C.I.D. Staff headed by Aziz Muhammad Khan accordingly on 12-9-1998 conducted the raid on the press of the petitioner (Nisar) and his house respectively. The raiding party during the search recovered 93 forged items of various categories.
This recovery was effected in the presence of Pio Noor C.I.D. And a local witness namely Muhammad Yaqoob.During the search Nisar Ahmad was arrested alongwith two petitioners namely, Bahar Ali and Khan Muhammad who were allegedly his employees in the aforesaid illegal trade. After the arrest case was registered and the petitioners were challenged.
3. During the investigation petitioner Bahar Ali made a confessional statement before a Magistrate on 16-9-1998 which is not a detailed statement and is exculpatory in nature. The prosecution case mainly rests on the evidence of the two marginal witnesses and the confessional statement of Bahar Ali, the offences for which the petitioners are charged entails punishment up to 7 years R.I.
Are almost boilable and do not attract the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. I have examined the record and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the search conducted by the Investigating Officer was not in accordance with the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C., as only one witness from the public had been associated by the police as a witness to the search. Besides it is alleged that the two petitioners namely, Bahar Ali and Khan Muhammad were employees of the principal accused namely Nisar Ahmad and they have no involvement with the printing of the fake documents. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Nisar, contended that the recovery of forged documents had not been proved against his client by the Investigating Officer as the same was not in accordance with the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C., therefore, he was of the view that the case of his client was that of further enquiry and he was entitled to bail.
6. It is true that the recovery of some forged documents was effected from the house and press of the accused (Nisar) but the offences for which Nisar and two others have been charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The punishment for all the offences is less than 10 years and in such-like cases the grant of bail is a rule while the refusal is exception.
7. In similar matters already this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No,237 of 1998 (Mujibur Rehman and Bahadur Rahim v. The State) and Criminal Miscellaneous No,945 of 1998 (Abdul Manan etc. v.
The State) decided on 22-9-1998, bail was allowed to the petitioners of those cases. Accordingly these applications are accepted and the petitioners are allowed bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,3,00,000 (three lacs) with three sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, Peshawar who shall see that the sureties are local and men of means.