Law:

Section:

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 457/380/411---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.14---Theft, lurking house-trespass and dishonestly receiving stolen property---Bail, grant of---Certain alleged stolen property, no doubt had been recovered from accused, but nothing was on record to reflect that those were the articles belonging to the complainant---In absence of such evidence, alleged recovery had become doubtful on the ground that such articles were commonly available in every house and easily available in the market---While considering the question of rule of consistency, High Court was of the opinion that same set of evidence was against all accused persons---Other two co-accused having been released on bail by High Court, accused was also entitled to be released on bail---Accused was released on bail, in circumstances. Arbab Zafar Ali Khan for Petitioner. Ikramullah Khan, A.A.-G. for Respondents. Syed Sultan Ahmad Shah for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 30th October, 2009. JUDGMENT MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J.---Khan Zeb accused petitioner along with his five other co-accused (1) Gul Zaman Shah, (2) Shakir ullah, (3) Zamir Gul, (4) Bakht Taj, and (5) Miraj were booked under sections 457/ 380/411, P.P.C. read with section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 vide F.I.R. No.454 dated 16-7-2009, Police Station Chamkani, Peshawar. 2. The complainant reported the matter to the police that when he came to his house after patrolling his duty as a night watchman, he was then informed by the house inmates that some unknown persons have entered their house in the midnight and have taken away four and a half Tolas gold ornaments, Rs.7500, one pedestal fan, one CD, one deck, one Sony TV along with clothes. The complainant after being satis fied named the present accused petitioner along with his five other co-accused (name of whom appeared in the F.I.R.). 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that it was an unseen occurrence. No proper identification of the recovered goods has been made because no brand of the…