1. ' States that the petitioner is involved in case F.I.R. No,105 of 1998, dated 22-3-1998 under section 457/380, P.P.C. Wherein households worth Rs,39,000 are alleged to have been stolen. The petitioner as well as his wife Mst. Parveen alongwith Khalil, Asif and Tariq were involved as accused persons.
2. Out of them Mst. Parveen and Tariq are on bail. It has been argued with vehemence that in fact the petitioner had instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the complainant because he himself is owner of the apartment wherefrom the alleged theft has taken place. It is, therefore, argued that he has been falsely implicated with mala fide intention. Tariq was taken into custody but no recovery could be effected from him. This fact supports the petitioner's contention that he has been falsely roped-in in this case. Be that as it may, without making any comments on the merits of the case considering that complainant did not appear before the Investigating Officer in spite of various summons issued to him. No material except the instant F.I.R. Is available with the prosecution to establish the implication of the petitioner in the alleged offence. It is true that normally in theft cases bail is not extended but considering the facts that the petitioner himself had filed a civil suit against the complainant and also that no recovery was effected from his son and his wife co-accused and also that the complainant has not even joined the investigation, I am pursuaded to confirm the bail already granted to the petitioner. He shall however, submit fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate of the area.