2017 PLP 962 (MLD)

SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.

At the very outset, it has been noticed by this Court that this is 3rd petition on the subject on behalf of the petitioner. The 1st petition bearing Crl. Misc. No.2306-B/2013 was dismissed by this Court while touching upon the merits of the case vide order dated 05.06.2013, which was assailed before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan through Criminal Petition No.667-L/2013 where the order of this Court was upheld vide order dated 11.07.2013. Subsequent to that the petitioner filed another bail petition bearing Crl. Misc. No.9030-B/2014, which too was dismissed by this Court in terms of order dated 25.09.2014 with direction to the learned trial court to conclude the trial of this case within four months.

2. By means of instant petition, Sh. Adnan Nasim/petitioner seeks his post-arrest bail in case FIR No.48, dated 18.01.2012, offence under sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Shahdra Town, Lahore, lodged on the complaint of Muhammad Aslam son of Muhammad Ismail, complainant/respondent No.2.

3. Facts of the case already stand mentioned in Crl. Misc. No.17318-B/12012 whereby pre-arrest bail of the petitioner was dismissed on merits in terms of order dated 18.12.2012; therefore, there is no need to repeat the same here.

4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is agitating the instant petition only on the statutory delay as the petitioner is behind the bars since 18.12.2012 and the trial has not been concluded so far. Learned counsel contends that in view of amendment in the statute, the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for by means of instant petition on statutory ground.

5. Contrarily, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes this petition. It is argued that the petitioner is involved in another case of heinous nature against the same party which classifies that the petitioner is a hardened/desperate criminal. In such circumstances, it is argued that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for.

6. Arguments advanced pro and contra have been heard. I have also perused the record available on file.

7. Admittedly the petitioner is named in the promptly lodged crime report with specific role of causing firearm injuries on the person of Zulifqar (deceased). During the occurrence, the deceased sustained six injuries on different parts of his body caused by the accused persons. The ocular account in this case is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. The PWs have fully implicated the petitioner with the crime alleged. Sufficient incriminating material is available on the record against the petitioner to connect him with the crime alleged. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding statutory delay is concerned, it is worth mentioning here that this is a case of highhandedness. Earlier to this, case FIR No.561/2005 was lodged in which Sharafat alias Bhai, real brother of Zulifqar (deceased of this case) was done to death wherein the deceased of the instant case was an eye witness of the occurrence. He was persuaded for compromise, but only on his refusal the extreme act of highhandedness was shown and he was done to death. The characteristics possessed by the petitioner clearly reflect that he is a desperate criminal who committed the murder only to frustrate the course of law. Moreover, keeping in view the dictum of law laid down in the cases of 'Nazir Hussain v. Ziaul Haq and others' (1983 SCMR 72), 'Muhammad Hanif v. The State' (PLD 1986 Karach 437) and Rahim Bux and others v. State (PLD 1986 Karachi 224), the petitioner can easily be dubbed as a hardened and desperate criminal. In the case of 'Muhammad Hanif v. The State' (PLD 1986 Karachi 437), it has been held as under:-- "

Section 497(1), fourth proviso

Bail

Accused whether desperate and dangerous criminal, opinion could be formed by Court when there are no pending cases at all against accused, on basis of material in that very case available with prosecution to connect accused with commission of crime". In the case of Rahim Bux and others v. State (PLD 1986 Karachi 224), it was held as follows:-- "

S. 497(1), third & fourth provisos

Bail

Concession of bail available to accused under third proviso to S. 497(1), Criminal Procedure Code, held, could be denied on ground that accused was a previously convict offender or a person who, in opinion of Court, was a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal". The petitioner can be deemed as a desperate criminal even if he is not previous convict and case in hand speaks otherwise. In the instant case, the conduct of the petitioner is reckless/desperate. He acted in a manner which is directly in conflict with the process of law which cannot be ignored by this Court by any stretch of imagination.

8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is not persuaded to accept this petition. Resultantly, the petition in hand having no force is hereby dismissed. AL/A-4/L Bail declined.