MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus THE STATE

ORDER

The petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.168 of 2003 registered on 27‑6‑2003 under section 489 B, P.P.C. at Police Station Sadar, Bahawalnagar on the report of Muhammad Yaqub, A.S.‑I.

2. The facts as narrated in the F.I.R., briefly, are that upon the information of a 'Mukhbar' Muhammad Yaqub, A.S.‑I. had conducted the raid at a place near Toba Qalandar Shah from where Muhammad Akbar and Muhammad Afzal were found in possession of forged/fake currency notes, which were taken into possession through recovery memo. at the spot.

3. The petitioner was arrested on 27‑6‑2003 and is still in the judicial lock up. The petitioner moved bail application before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar but the same was dismissed on 2‑10‑2003 by the aforesaid learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, this application.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the raid was conducted in violation of section 103, Cr.P.C.; section 489‑B, P.P.C. was also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. It could be at the most a case of section 489‑C, P.P.C. which does sot fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner‑accused as abscondence of the petitioner was apprehended by him.

6. From the bare reading of the F.I.R. case of possession of the counterfeit/ forged/fake currency notes is made out for which section 489‑B; P.P.C., prima facie, does not apply because the provisions of section 489‑B of P.P.C. refer to a situation when the person in possession of the counterfeit currency notes sells, buys or receives from any other person or otherwise traffics it or uses it as genuine, knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be forged and counterfeit. In the instant case, there is no allegation/accusation of such kind found in the F.I.R. I made a query' from the Investigating Officer, present in Court, as to whether any evidence of sale and purchase was recorded by him during the investigation, to which he replied in the negative, therefore, the case of the petitioner prima facie falls within the offence of section 489‑C, for which the punishment has been prescribed as to the extent up to 7 years or with fine or with both, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C, The judgments in which the bail was granted to the accused, when his case was not covered by section 489‑B, P.P.C. are referred below: ‑‑

(i) Zafar Iqbal v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 834.

(ii) Muhammad Sajjad v. The State 1996 PCr.LJ 815.

(iii) Sher Ahmad v. The State PLD 1993 Peshawar 104.

Therefore, having found support from the above noted judgments, I grant the petitioner bail after arrest in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (One hundred thousand rupees) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

H.B.T./M‑292/L Bail granted.