' Petitioner seeks bail in F.I.R. No,138 of 1998 registered with Police Station Seetal Mari, on 27-3-1998, under section 489-D, P.P.C.
2. Allegations against the petitioner as gleaned out from the first information report lodged on 27- 3-1998 by the raiding party are that an information was received through a Mukhbar that the petitioner deals in fake currency notes. The petitioner was apprehended with a brief-case in his hand and on search of the brief-case 32 packets of white papers of the size of the currency notes of Rs,100 denomination, two glass-slides containing picture of 100 rupee note and two other slides alongwith bottles containing different colours and a pass-book of Muslim Commercial Bank bearing No,6513 were recovered from the brief-case being held by the petitioner; an unlicensed pistol containing one live bullet was also said to have been recovered.
3. Post-arrest bail application of the petitioner was rejected by the trial Court and his last application met the same fate vide order, dated 25-3-1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was arrested on 27-3-1998 and on 1-4-1998 on his application he was examined by a doctor who found six injuries on his person caused by the blunt weapon of the duration of seven to ten days. Learned counsel maintained that the petitioner was taken in custody illegally by Falak Sher, S.-I. Who gave him thorough beating and, after the orders of the bailiff were obtained from the High Court the instant case was foisted on him. He has further argued that the material allegedly recovered from the petitioner was not sent to the Expert for an opinion whether fake currency notes can be made on the said material so as to deceive any person of reasonable sense and prudence. Conversely learned State Counsel has refuted the allegations and maintained that the offence committed comes within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. When the Police Officer present in Court was questioned as to the submission of the challan, his answer was that the challan has been submitted but the trial has not yet commenced. I am not oblivious to the fact that on 1-4-1998 the petitioner was examined by a doctor who found as many as six injuries which have not been explained by the Police Officer present in Court as to how he suffered them. It could not be said that at the time of arrest he had those injuries on his person because had it been so, mention of the same would have been made in the report. I also see eye to eye with submission of learned counsel that an expert opinion was essential to show whether the material recovered could be used in counterfeiting currency notes. All these factors kept in juxtaposition has enable the petitioner to make out a case of further inquiry. Resultantly I allow bail to the petitioner provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.