ZAKIR Versus State
ORDER
NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.--- Applicants/accused Zakir, Nazeer and Sadam have applied for post arrest bail in crime No. 234 of 2014 registered at P.S. Naushehro Feroze, under sections 489-B and 489-C, P.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR are that on 01.09.2014 ASI Riaz Hussain of P.S. Naushehro Feroze left P.S. along with subordinate staff for patrolling, when police party reached at vegetable market Naushehro Feroze, police party was called by the persons who were swelling mangoes. They had caught hold accused persons as they were using counterfeit currency Notes for purchase of mangoes. Present accused were arrested and from their possession Forged Notes were recovered. FIR was lodged against accused on 1.9.2014 under sections 489 B, 489-C, P.P.C. Details of "Forged Notes" are mentioned in the end of FIR. Statements of PWs were recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Forged Notes were presented to the State Bank of Pakistan Sukkur and it was verified that Notes were forged. After usual investigation, challan was submitted against accused under sections 489-B, 489 -C, P.P.C.
3. Bail application was moved on behalf of applicants/accused before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Naushehro Feroze, same was rejected vide order dated 24.9.2014.
4. Learned advocate for the applicants/accused mainly contended that details of the Forged Notes are not mentioned in the challan. Applicants/accused are in jail since last 10 months and trial Court has issued NBWs against the complainant for recording his evidence but he has failed to appear before the trial Court. It is also argued that yet it is to be determined whether offence would fall under section 489-B or 489-C, P.P.C. In support of his contentions, reliance has been placed upon cases of Abdul Nabi v. The State (2012 YLR 2673), Danis Gabol v. The State (2010 PCr.LJ 178), Zahoor Ahmed v. The State (1995 PCr.LJ 1715), Raja Khan v. The State (2014 PCr.LJ 625), Taj Ali Khan v. The State (2004 YLR 439) and Akhtar v. The State (2014 YLR 772).
5. Learned APG for the State argued that Forged Notes have been recovered from the possession of accused and accused were using Forged Notes as genuine. He has opposed the grant of bail to the applicants/accused.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record.
7. From the perusal of FIR, it transpires that as soon as police party reached in the vegetable market, mango sellers had already caught hold accused persons and claimed that accused had used a note of Rs.5000/- one day before of their arrest, which was Forged currency Note. It is not clear in the FIR as well as in the 161, Cr.P.C. statements of PWs that out of three accused who had used Forged currency Note and to whom. Apparently, there was no use of Forged currency Notes on the day of arrest of accused. Mere possession of Forged currency Notes is not sufficient to disentitle the accused from concession of bail unless charge is proved against them. In order to constitute an offence under section 489-B, P.P.C. a person must have the knowledge or have reasons to believe that currency Notes in question were forged or counterfeit, which requires evidence. In the circumstances of the case yet it is to be determined whether offence would fall under section 489-B or 489 -C, P.P.C. Moreover, applicants/accused are in jail since last 10 months. Learned APG confirms that there is no substantial progress in the trial since last 10 months. There is nothing on record that applicant/accused are previous convicts.
8. For the above stated reasons while relying upon the above cited authorities, it appears that prima-facie, there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the applicants/accused have committed the alleged offence, but there are sufficient grounds for further enquiry into their guilt. As such, case requires further enquiry within purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Concession of bail is extended to the applicants/accused subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees one lac) each and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
9. Needless to say, observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature. The trial court shall not be influenced by such observations while deciding the case on merits.
SL/Z-7/Sindh Application accepted.