2001 PLP 1189 (MLD)

The present applicant is seeking bail in Crime No.267 of 2000, registered with Police Station Jamshed Quarters under section 17(3) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 392, P.P.C. Brief facts of the case are that on 20‑9‑1997 on 14.00 hours Complainant Abbas Brohi son of Karim Bux Brohi, resident of R‑32, Street No. 1, Defence Housing Authority, Karachi lodged the F. I. R. stating therein that he resides at the abovementioned address and on 20‑9‑1997 he alongwith his wife came to shop of Qureshi Goshtwala in his car bearing Registration No.ABB‑845, the said shop was situated opposite Banori Town Mosque. The complainant after parking his car on the road entered the shop for buying articles. His wife was sitting in the car. Subsequently, he came out of the shop, after purchasing articles and went to sit in the vehicle after opening the door. Meanwhile, one boy aged about 20/22 years white colour wearing black paint and blue shirt came from his backside and pushed the complainant and asked him to leave the vehicle and directed him to give him whatever he has got. The complainant and his wife due to fear handed over him golden ring, golden chain, and wrist watch; the accused started car of the complainant and drove away the car towards Gurumandir the complainant can identify the accused if brought before him. The applicant is said to have been arrested by Police Station Ferozabad in Crime Nos.541 of 1997 and 542 of 1997 arid subsequently, he is said to have been arrested in the instant case. Learned counsel for the applicant at the very outset has submitted that he is seeking bail of the applicant on the ground of statutory delay as the present applicant is behind the bar since 29‑9‑1997 and so far two witnesses, namely, Shahzad and Abdul Hameed have examined by the trial Court and 5 witnesses are yet to be examined by the prosecution. On the other hand learned counsel for the State Mr. Muhammad Ismail raised no objection to the grant of bail to the present applicant on the ground of statutory delay, by contending‑that the present applicant is behind bar for the last more than three years and is entitled to the concession of bail on the ground of statutory delay. When asked as to what role has been assigned to the applicant during the commission of the offence, learned State Counsel submitted that the applicant has snatched the car and golden ring, golden chain and wrist watch and it is a case of snatching. I have heard Mr. Ali Ahmed Bangash, learned Counsel for the applicant; Mr. Ismail Memon, learned State Counsel and have perused the police papers and material available on record. The charge has been framed by the trial Court on 13‑3‑1999 and two witnesses namely, Shahzad and Abdul Hameed have been examined and 5 witnesses are yet to be examined by the trial Court. I have also gone through the impugned order and the police papers and the role of the present applicant is very heinous and he is already involved in two other crime being Crime Nos.541 of 1997 and 542 of 1997; the present applicant is also involved in the instant case which is a case of car‑snatching and other articles; taking into consideration, the role played by the applicant he is not even entitled to the grant of bail on the statutory ground. Reference can be made to a case of Rizwan Hussain v. The State, reported in 1999 SCMR 131 which reads as follows. "Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3) 'Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Act 185(3)' Bail on the ground of statutory delay 'High Court being not oblivious of the high incidence of case of car‑snatching in the city, had rightly invoked the fourth proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C., while rejecting the bail application of accused'. Leave to apeal was refused to accused accordingly." In view of the aforementioned Authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court, I do not find any substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly the Bail Application of applicant is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within two months from the date of receipt of this Order. H.B.T./F‑13/K???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Application dismissed.