1998 P Cr (PLP)

1997 PCrLJ 414 ref. Syed Faiz-ul-Hassan Naqvi for Petitioner. Maqsood Ahmad Khan for the State. A case under section 392/411, P.P.C. read with section 20 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was registered against the petitioner and another vide F. I. R. No. 143 of 1993 lodged at Police Station Saddar Sargodha by Muhammad Ashraf, Headmaster of the school. It was contended in the F.I.R. that the Headmaster was carrying a bag containing Rs.1,46,000 being salary of the staff. He was proceeding on a motor cycle to disburse the salary to the staff when he was looted by the petitioner and his co-accused on a public thoroughfare at pistol point. The accused made their escape good alongwith aforesaid amount. Later on a part of looted amount was recovered from the petitioner at his instance.

2. The bail is prayed on the ground that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R.; that no identification parade was conducted to 4.ink him with the occurrence; that the recovery was fake; that the petitioner was involved on account of the statement of the co-accused; and lastly that he was behind the bars since 26-2-1996 and as such, is continuously detained for more than one year but his case has not yet been decided. In this regard, reference to third proviso of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. was made.

3. Learned State Counsel opposed the petition on the ground that the trial has already been opened in which six witnesses have been examined; that the conclusion of the trial is allegedly within sight; that the deeper appreciation about the merits of the case cannot be undertaken at this stage without prejudicing the trial itself. Lastly, it is contended that since the petitioner acted in desperate manner to rob the complainant while he was travelling on a motor cycle on a public thoroughfare, therefore, he was not entitled to bail.

4. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that though the petitioner had not been named in the F.I.R. yet he has been nominated by his co accused and an amount of Rs.30,000 was recovered from him out of the looted money. The complainant also identified him as one of the accused. In such a situation and keeping in view the facts of the case, it can be prima facie said that the petitioner acted desperately to commit robbery on a public thoroughfare in broad daylight at pistol point. As such, the observation of the learned trial Court appears to be just that since the petitioner .was a desperate criminal, therefore, he was not entitled to the bail according to the provisions contained in fourth proviso of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Since the trial has already started in the trial Court and six witnesses have already been recorded, therefore, its conclusion is within sight. The deeper appreciation of the merits of the case is likely to prejudice the view of the trial Court and as such, it should be avoided at this stage. Since the conclusion of the trial is within sight, therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled to the bail even on statutory ground for the role assigned to him to rob the complainant on a public thoroughfare. A reference to 1997 PCr.LJ 414 can be conveniently made. The petition is accordingly dismissed with the direction that the trial Court shall conclude the trial and decide the case within six weeks from the receipt of this order in the said Court under intimation to this Court. The petitioner may reagitate for bail in the Court below if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid stipulated time. N.H.Q./A-148/L Bail disallowed.