1989 PLP 852 (MLD)

Sardar Muhammad Ishaq for Applicant. A.G. Mangi, AA.‑G. for the State. Applicants Imdad Hussain, Muhammad Akram and Wali Muhammad are being tried for the offences punishable under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The allegation against the applicants is that they committed robbery on 13‑9‑1986 at Bliss Shopping Centre, Zebun‑Nisa Street Karachi. It is alleged that they robbed jewellery and other articles from the Goldsmith Shop on the point of sophisticated weapons. Their bail applications on merits were rejected earlier. Mr. Sardar Muhammad Ishaq, Advocate, has moved repeatedly these bail applications on statutory delay. It is contended by the learned counsel that the applicants have remained in jail for more 2 years, but the trial has not concluded. The learned Additional District Judge, Karachi (South) has rejected their bail applications on the ground that their bail applications on merits as well as on the ground of delay have already been rejected by the High Court. I have heard Mr. Sardar Muhammad Ishaque. He has referred P L D 1986 Pesh.

92. Mr. A.G. Mangi, AA.‑G. has opposed the bail and submitted that against the applicants number of cases of dacoity are pending in various Courts. He has furnished fist of cases pending against them, which shows that there are as many as 6 cases under sections 17(3), 307 and 13‑D of the Arms Ordinance pending against Imdad, 1 to 3 cases under section 17(3) and one'under section 13‑D is pending against Muhammad Akram while 2 cases under sections 17(3), A 307/34 are pending against Wali Muhammad. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, in his order, clearly stated that Wali Muhammad is dangerous. Even from the circumstances and the record of the cases, I am of the view that under proviso 4 of section 497, Cr.P.C., the applicants are not entitled to bail. Each case is to be decided on the statutory delay in view of the circumstances and the facts of the case, therefore, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicants on the ground of I statutory delay. Mr. A.G. Mangi pointed out that the case has proceeded and some wiesses have been examined. However, Sub‑inspector, Muhammad Afzal of C.I.A. is present and he is directed to contact the Assistant Public Prosecutor and get the list of the remaining witnesses and produce them before the trial Court on the next date of hearing. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the case day to day and should not grant unnecessary adjournments and complete the trial H within 3 months. The attention of the trial Court is invited to the order passed on 24‑4‑1988 on bail application of Imdad Hussain, whereby he was directed to send progress report of the case after every fortnight. The same has not been sent. He should submit his explanation within a week. In case custody is not produced, his attention was already invited to P' L D 1981 SC

1. The progress report should be sent after every week. The applications Nos. Criminal Bail 207 of 1989, 208 of 1989 and 209 of 1989 are dismissed by this single order. S.A./W‑40/K?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.