1999 PLP 109 (YLR)

The brief facts of the prosecution as disclosed in the F.I.R. lodged by Mirza Suhail Beg are that he is owner of New Super Store namely Marvi. On 10‑3‑1997 at about 7‑45 p.m. Cashier Badruddin informed him on telephone that dacoity has been committed in the Store. He at once informed the Police Authorities on Phone No.134 and rushed to store. On enquiry Cashier informed him that three persons entered in the store and one stood at outer gate. One of them gave him currency note of Rs.1,000 denomination and demanded one packet of Gold Leaf Cigarettes. Cashier told him that he has no change whereupon that person paid him the amount. As soon as he opened the drawer, both the said persons immediately aimed T.T. Pistols at him and on the point of firearms they snatched cash amounting to Rs.17,000 which were lying in the drawer and ran away. He further stated that he can identify the culprits who snatched the said amount on the point of firearms. After usual investigation applicant alongwith his companions was sent up to stand trial. The applicant applied for the bail but his request was turned down by impugned order, dated 8‑10‑1998. I have heard Mr. Iqbal Khurram learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Habibur Rasheed, learned counsel on behalf of A.‑G. for the State. Latter has opposed the grant of bail. At the very outset learned counsel for the applicant stated that he pressed the bail plea on the ground of statutory delay only as the applicant is behind bares since two years. He stated that the applicant is not a previous convict; It was, thus, contended that he was entitled to bail. The perusal of the record shows that applicant/accused alongwith his companions barged into the Super Store of complainant duly armed with firearms and by putting the inmate of the store in fear of death snatched the cash amounting to Rs.17,

000. The applicant was arrested on 17‑10‑1997 and his identification test was held wherein he was correctly picked out by the eye‑witnesses. The order of Trial Court shows that applicant is facing trial in seven other similar cases. The report regarding conduct of applicant submitted by Superintendent Jail shows that the applicant is a hardened, desperate and dangerous, criminal and his remaining out of jail would be risky. In the circumstances the Government of Sindh was moved to order the trial of applicant inside the Jail premises. The ground of statutory delay urged on behalf of applicant accused is of no help to him looking towards the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Proviso (3) to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. is controlled by Proviso (4) to section 497, Cr.P.C. While considering a bail plea on the ground of statutory delay, Court has to take into consideration the material collected by the prosecution and if a case falls within the purview of proviso (4) to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Court can refuse bail. The act of robbery, dacoity and vehicle snatching amounts to terrorism. In this context I am fortified by an unreported D.B. decision of this Court in the case of Dhani Bux and others v. The State (1999 MLD 2098) wherein I was one of the members. The applicant was identified as one of the culprits who committed robbery. His act therefore, amounts to terrorism and he is not entitled to bail. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the applicant are of no help to him as the facts and circumstances of the cited cases are altogether different and distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, I see no merit in this application for bail, which is accordingly dismissed. The observations made hereinabove are of tentative nature and the Trial Court will not be influenced thereby in any way at the time of final disposal of the case and it will be free to arrive at its own finding after appraising the evidence in the case at the stage of trial. N.H.Q./S‑227/K ???????? Bail refused.