' Muhammad Ilyas alias Guddu accused-petitioner facing prosecution in case F.I.R. No,15, dated 5- 3-2001 under section 411, P.P.C. Read with sections 9/14, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 Police Station, Doongagali, was refused bail by the Courts below. Now he has approached this Court for the same concession.
2. Muhammad Hanif complainant made a written report to the police on 28-2-2001 to the effect that he is residing at Rawalpindi and used to come to his village during the summar vacation of his children. On 26-9-2001 when he came to his village/house, he saw that the window of the kitchen of his house has been broken and his household articles were lying scattered. On further search he found his household articles valuing Rs,15/16,000 were missing. He after his satisfaction charged the accused-petitioner alongwith two others for commission of theft from his house. On the basis of the above written report of the complainant a case under the above sections of law was registered against the accused.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case with their assistance.
4. It appears from the record that the report of the occurrence was not lodged with promptitude because the complainant for the first time came to know about the theft from his house when he came to his house on 26-9-2000 but the matter was reported to the police on 28-2-2001 after about five months and for this long delay no plausible explanation has been given by the complainant. Moreover, it is not disputed that for the offence of theft liable to Hadd the evidence of two Muslim adult male witnesses is required which is not available in the instant case. In these circumstances, it is yet to be seen whether the offence would be punishable under section 9 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, Section 13 of the Ordinance provides that whoever commits theft which is liable to Hadd, or for which proof in either of the forms mentioned in section 7 is not available, or for which Hadd may not be imposed or enforced under this Ordinance, shall be liable to Tazir. Section 14 of the Ordinance provides that whoever commits theft liable to Tazir shall be awarded punishment provided for the offence of theft in the Pakistan Penal Code. In case the offence committed by the accused is punishable as Tazir, the punishment provided for the offence of theft in the Pakistan Penal Code would not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Furthermore, section 411, P.P.C. Is also bailable. The investigation in the case is complete and no fruitful purpose would be served to keep the petitioner in jail for indefinite period. In these circumstances and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I accept this bail application and admit the accused-petitioner to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,20,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate.