Petitioners stand involved in Crime Report No, 240 dated 24-8-2001 under sections 448/511/379, P .
P. C . registered against them and others with Police Station Shera Kot, Lahore on the basis of an application made by Muhammad Yaqoob.
2. The complainant alleged in the F.I.R. that the petitioners alongwith others came down to his shop and tried to acquire forcible possession of the same, otherwise than by .due course of law.
Furthermore, they carried away Safe (Ghalla) containing Rs,5.500 which was also stolen by them.
Muhammad Arshad and Haji Javed Ahmad, who were available at the shop of the petitioner to purchase meat from him had seen the entire occurrence.
3. After being refused bail by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Lahore by virtue of his order dated 29-9-2001, the petitioners approached this Court through the instant petition. They were allowed interim anticipatory bail by this Court on 3-10-2001.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Haji Dil Muhammad petitioner is father of his co- petitioners. He is an old doddering person. Muhammad Yaqoob complainant is nephew of Haji Dil Muhammad ,so both the sides are closely related to each other. There was a properly dispute pertaining to the shop and for that reason this case has been got registered against them in absolutely false premises. He submits that all that has been alleged by the complainant in the first information report is a patent falsehood. Petitioners are not expected to commit theft of Rs,5,5 belonging to the complainant as Haji Dil Muhammad is a well to do person, who served for about 25 years in a foreign country.
5. Their adversaries argued that names of the petitioners with specific parts played by them during the course of incident have been mentioned in the F.I.R. There were eye-witnesses of the occurrence and allegations of theft are levelled against them.
6. Learned counsel for both the sides have been heard at length. The police official, present in Court, submits that one of the eye-witnesses, namely, Javed Ahmad had not joined the investigation so far, whereas the other eye-witnesses Muhammad Arshad has not brought accusations of theft against the petitioners. According to him, currency notes were lying scattered outside the shop and they were taken into possession by the police through a memo. Allegations of theft prima facie appear to be improbable and unreasonable. Section 379, P.P.C. may have been added to change complexion of the case and to convert bailable offences into non-bailable ones.
The petitioners had joined the investigation and no recovery was effected from them.
7. For all these reasons, interim anticipatory bail already allowed to the petitioners is hereby confirmed.