P L D 2002 Karachi 106 (PLP)

1. Granted subject to just exceptions.

2. Applicant Suleman is facing trial alongwith co‑accused for an offence punishable under sections 392/324/353/34. P.P.C. According to F.I.R. complainant Tariq Bajwa had gone to shop of Ibrahim Jee Easa Jee accompanied by Naeem. Akram and Abdul Majeed. At about 8‑00 p.m. four persons came at the shop, out of whom one stood outside and three entered the shop and asked the inmates to hand over belongings to them. One of them took out Rs.3,000 from the pocket of complainant and Rs.1,700 from that of Abdul Majeed. The people present outside raised an alarm on which the culprits started running away but in the meantime police reached there. The culprits fired at the police and the police also returned tire. A bullet hit one of the culprits at his stomach, who fell down. His name transpired to be Wali Azam. Another culprit Khaista Rehman received a bullet on his leg. The present applicant was overpowered by police. The fourth one succeeded in escaping away. A pistol and Rs.4,700 were secured from possession of, Wali Azam and a pistol of 30 bore was secured from possession of each of the remaining culprits including the applicant. The case was initially challaned in the A.T.C. Court but since sections 6 and 7 of Anti‑Terrorism Act were not applicable to the case, the matter was transferred to ordinary Court. The trial made no progress, therefore, bail was sought on the ground of statutory delay, which was declined by the trial Court holding that the applicant was a dangerous criminal. Learned counsel for applicant. Mr. Asadullah Baloch submitted that the applicant has remained in custody for a period of more than one year and he has not contributed towards this delay, therefore, he is entitled to bail within the meaning of third proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. He relied on Fazal Ellahi v. State PLD 1982 SC (AJ&K) 20 and Ghulam Yasin v. State 1968 SCMR 1308 in support of his contentions. Mr Sharafat Ali Khan, learned State Counsel conceded to grant of bail Admittedly, the trial has made no progress and there is no default on Te part of applicant as far the delay in conclusion of trial is concerned. The learned trial Court has, however, declined bail taking judicial notice of the increase in crime of robbery, and dacoity in the city and opined that persons involved in such, offences do not deserve leniency. I would approve the above view of the trial Court that incidence of daredevil robberies/dacoities in the city has reached alarming proportions. In the instant case, immediately after commission of the offence there was an encounter with the bandits in the street and the applicant was captured on the spot along with pistol of '30 bore. He does not deserve the concession of bail. The case of Fazal Ellahi [PLD 1982 SC(AJ&K) 20] is not based on consideration relating to third and fourth provisos to section 497(1), Cr.P.C and similarly Ghulam Yasin's case 1968 SCMR 1308 deals with a case much before introduction of third and fourth provisos to section 497(1), Cr.P.C The rule laid down in Fazal‑ur‑Rehman v. State PLD 1981 SC (AJ&K) 10 was that bail shall not be withheld as punishment. As already discussed the alleged act of applicant has disentitled him to the concession available under the third proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C and at least it may be pointed out that fourth proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. was not under consideration in the cited case. In view of foregoing reasons the applicant is not entitled to bail but, however, it is to be emphasized that notwithstanding the role assigned to the applicant it would be against the spirit of law if his detention is continued indefinitely without trial. Right of trial is always to be safeguarded. Looking to this aspect, it is directed that the trial Court shall complete the trial within four months of receiving this order, failing which the applicant may repeat his application for bail on whatsoever grounds available to him. H.B.T./S‑168/K Application dismissed/Order accordingly.