1999 PLP 1300 (MLD)

S. 497(1), third proviso

Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.20

Bail on the ground of statutory delay-- Accused who were involved in cases of car lifting and who were in custody for the last about four years, had been declined bail by Trial Court on the ground that they having been involved in many cases of like nature were desperate, dangerous and hardened criminals

Involvement of accused in a number of cases of similar nature was not sufficient to deprive them of their liberty

Accused having become entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay were allowed bail. Muhammad Rafique v. The State 1997 SCMR 412 ref. Sardar Muhammad Ishaque for Applicants. Sharafat Ali Khan for the State. Applicants Abdul Latif and Abu Bakar are charged offence under section 20 of the Offence Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance, 1979). Both the applicants were accused of Car lifting have been in custody since 1994. Application for bail on their behalf on the ground of statutory delay were preferred for trial Court, but were rejected twice. The last order being passed on 18-8-1997. Mr. Sardar Mohammad Ishaque, learned counsel for the applicants argued that the alleged offences are, admittedly, not punishable with imprisonment for 10 years or death, the applicants are entitled to a bail as of right under third proviso of section 497, Cr.P.C. Referring to the order passed by the learned trial Court, learned counsel has argued that the application on the ground of statutory delay was dismissed by the trial Court by holding that the applicants were, desperate dangerous and hardened criminals and not entitled to grant of bail under provision of law. Nevertheless, the only reason for reaching such conclusion, as is evident from the terms of the impugned order, is that at large number of cases of Car lifting pending against the applicants, Mr. Sharafat Ali Khan, learned counsel for State did not dispute the factual position, but argued with the mere fact that the applicants were involved in several cases of Car lifting was itself adequate to show that they were desperate arid dangerous persons not entitled to bail. Mr. Sardar Mohammad Ishaq has relied upon the recent Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Refique v. The State (1997 SCMR 412). In this case, bail. was sought to be rejected on the ground that about ten (10) criminal cases were pending against the applicant where he was accused of having committed robbery, but it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "Fact that the accused in a number of cases of robbery, is not sufficient to deprive him of his liberty". The learned counsel for the State has not been able to show that the principle of law declared in the above case is not applicable to the present one or has been subsequently departed from. In the circumstances, respectfully following the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that the applicants are entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay and are admitted as such upon furnishing surety in the amount of Rs.100,000 (Rupees One hundred thousand only) each with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. They will be released forthwith if they are not required in any other case. N.H.Q./A-231/K Bail allowed.