1993 P Cr (PLP)

S. Mehmood Alam Rizvi for Applicant. Shoukat H. Zuebdi, A.A.-G. for the State. Date of hearing: 24th February, 1992. This is an application for bail made on behalf of applicant Shahabuddin, who is detained in Crime No.192 of 1990, Aziz Bhatti Police Station under section 395/397, P.P.C. The bail application made on his behalf was rejected earlier `by learned Sessions Judge (East), Karachi, vide order dated 26-12-1991. I have heard Mr. S. Mehmood Alam Rizvi, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Shoukat H. Zubedi, learned AA.-G. for State. The latter has raised no objection to the grant of bail to applicant on the ground of statutory delay by stating that mere pendency of 5 cases against the applicant is no ground to label him as desperate, dangerous or hardened criminal. 3. Admittedly the applicant is in custody since 5-12-1990 and the case pending against him is not punishable with death. There is also no indication on record that the applicant or any other person acting on his behalf are instrumental for causing the delay in disposal of this case. The bail was refused to applicant by the learned Sessions Judge, mainly on the ground that he is involved in 5 cases. Mr. S. Mehmood Alam Rizvi, learned counsel for applicant has placed on record certified copies of orders passed in 4 other cases by which bail was allowed to applicant. The case of Moundar v. The State reported in P L D 1990 SC 934, which has been relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the bail application of the applicant in fact supports his case. I cannot do better than quote the weighty observations of the Supreme Court, which are as follows:-- "So far as Criminal Appeal No.9 of 1989 is concerned, learned counsel submitted that on the basis of lists of 7 or 8 cases registered against the appellants during the last about 10 years, the learned Judge in the- High Court held that bail was rightly refused to them on the ground that they were hardened criminals, Learned counsel contended that mere registration of cases was not, in the circumstances of the case, sufficient to sustain the opinion formed by the Court below that the appellants were criminals of the categories mentioned, because the State counsel failed to apprise the Court the result of these cases. According to the learned counsel in all these cases the appellants were honourably acquitted and in some they were acquitted under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. as no prima facie case was made out. Learned counsel, therefore, emphatically contended that the Court had failed to investigate and analyse the material placed before it by the prosecution. Before us the appellants have produced the certified copies of the orders of the Court in each case to substantiate the submission that these cases were false and instituted on account of enmity. All these cases have been disposed of except the cases in which the present bail application was submitted and the off-shoots thereof which were cases under the Arms Ordinance registered by the police although the arms are licensed. In support of his argument learned counsel has also placed reliance on Gul Muhammad v. State 1987 P Cr. L J 737, in which in similar circumstances the Court declined to form an opinion that the accused persons were hardened criminals on account of inadequate material. We find considerable force in the submission of Sh. Ijaz Ali, learned counsel for the appellants. It appears that the learned Judge in the High Court did not fully examine the nature of the cases, the facts involved and the result thereof, before placing reliance on the mere factum of registration of cases as sufficient for the purpose of the requisite opinion under the 4th proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C." 4. Having regard to the above facutal and legal position, I am in agreement with the view taken by learned A.A.-G. and grant bail to applicant in the sum of Rs.50,000 with P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./S-1003/K Bail granted.