P L D 2000 Lahore 59 (PLP)

This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No.2108‑B of 1999 as well as Criminal Miscellaneous 1978‑B of 1999 as both arise out of one and the same F. I. R.

2. The petitioners who are accused of offence under sections 302/34, 109, P.P.C. vide F.I.R. No.953 of 1996 dated 24‑11‑1996 registered with Police Station Saddar Faisalabad, seek bail on the ground of statutory delay committed in the conclusion of the trial. The petitioners were arrested on 1‑4‑1997 and after completing the physical remand they are under judicial lock‑up wherein, they are continuously confined as under trial prisoners. It is argued that an inordinate delay was caused by the prosecution in submission of the challan which is however, refuted by the prosecution because the accused persons kept on making applications. Be that as it may, the fact remains that challan was submitted in Court on 9‑9‑1998 after about one year and ten months of registration of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to demonstrate that no adjournment had been sought by the petitioners or anyone else on their behalf. It is further argued that under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. the petitioners are entitled to the concession of bail. In support of his contention he places reliance on various authorities which include the following:‑‑ (a)???????? 1993 SCMR 65; (b)???????? 1998 SCMR 190; (c) ?????? ?1990 SC 934; and (d)???????? 1997 SCMR 412. 2‑A. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the complainant has vigorously opposed the grant of bail on the ground that F.I.R. was recorded on 24‑11‑1996, the petitioners were main accused in that case but he remained fugitive from law uptill 1‑4‑1997, when their arrest was effected. Further argues that the case of the petitioners is covered by 4th proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. which has placed an embargo on concession of bail to accused person who is either previous convict, hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal or involved in terrorism. According to the learned counsel the petitioners have adverse record of criminal involvement in a number of cases starting from 1989 up to the registration of the case under consideration. He has furnished the list of cases wherein the, petitioners remained involved as accused which include the following cases: ‑‑ (i)????????? F.I.R. No.159 dated 20‑4‑1990 under section 307, P.P.C., Police Station Shahkot. (ii)???????? F.

1. R. No. 173 dated 27‑6‑1990, under section 13/20/65, Police Station Shahkot. (iii)??????? F.I.R. No.97 dated 13‑3‑1989 under section 307/336/34, Police Station Thekri. (iv)??????? F.I.R. No.251 dated 10‑7‑1990 under section 336/148/149, Police Station Thekri. (v)???????? F.I.R. No.399 dated 19‑10‑1995 under section 354, P.P.C. Police Station Thekri. Zahid Sarfraz is required as accused in the following cases:‑‑ (i)????????? F.I.R. No.279 dated 25‑7‑1990 under section 13/20/65, Police Station Thekriwala‑ (ii)? ?????? F.I.R. No,97 dated 13‑3‑1989 under section 307/336, P,P.C. Police Station Thekriwala. (iii)??????? F.I.R. No.251 dated 10‑7‑1990 under section 336/188, etc. Police Station Thekriwala. (iv)??????? F.I.R. No.253 dated 6 5‑1995 under section 302/34, P.P.C. Police Station Thekriwala. (v)???????? F.I.R. No,399 dated 19‑10‑1995 under section 364, P.P.C. Police Station Thekriwala, In support of his contention the learned counsel has placed reliance on the following cases where the concession of bail was not extended because of criminal antecedent of an accused person:‑‑ (a)??????? PLD 1982 SC 424; (b)???????? 1993 SCMR 525; (c)???????? 1997 PCr.LJ 917; and (d)???????? 1994 PCr.LJ 1327. The learned counsel for the petitioners tried to clarify that in most of the cases wherein the petitioners remained involved they were either acquitted or got discharged, therefore, those cases cannot be taken into consideration to their detriment to refuse the concession of bail, I am afraid the argument is not acceptable because under 4th proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. it is not the previous conviction alone which disentitles an accused person from concession but it includes any accused person who in the opinion of the Court is hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal An accused person who remains involved in a number of criminal cases at different times in different police stations, would certainly be treated as a hardened or desperate criminal. Keeping in view the previous record and history of the accused petitioners I find that they are not entitled to the concession of bail on the ground of statutory delay. These petitions, therefore, are dismissed. The learned trial Court however, will keep in mind the time already consumed by the prosecution and would see that the trial is concluded expeditiously without any further unnecessary delay. N.H.Q./A‑119/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.