P L D 2001 Karachi 233 (PLP)

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.392, 457, 380 & 34

Baii, grant of

Bail was sought on the grounds of consistency and statutory reasons of delay

Accused contended that co-accused had been enlarged on bail and that he had already completed twenty-four months in custody

Validity

Rule of consistency required that facts and circumstances should be similar which condition had not been met in the case of accused as the case of co accused was distinguishable

Statutory ground of delay was also not available to the accused as he was hardened, desperate and dangerous criminal because he had not only snatched car on the pistol point, but had also committed house-breaking

Accused in circumstances was not entitled to bail. Manzoor Ahmed for Applicant. Sharafat Ali Khan for the State. The accused/applicant is facing trial for the offence, punishable under sections 392, 457, 380, 34, P.P.C. Mr. Manzoor Ahmed has submitted that the accused is not named in the F.I.R. and no identification test was held. He has further submitted that the accused has already completed 24 months in custody and therefore, he is entitled for release on bail. He has further submitted that co-accused Shahid Pervaiz has been enlarged on bail and on the rule of consistency bail may be granted to the applicant. The learned State Counsel has opposed the bail application for the reason that the case of the present accused is distinguished from the case of co-accused Shahid Pervaiz. The prosecution case is that on 13-10-1998 3/4 young persons entered into the house of complainant Mst. Seema w/o. Rafiq Anwar Siddiqui, and robbed away her car and Rs.7,000 from the persons living on the ground floor of the house. Subsequently the robbed car was recovered on the pointation of the present applicant Shahid Jamshed and consequently the case of Shahid Jamshed is not same as of accused Shahid Pervaiz from whom no recovery was made. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C., were not complied with and therefore, the recovery on the pointation of applicant is doubtful. At this stage. I would not like to make any observation on the point whether in the circumstances of this case section 103, Cr.P.C. is attracted or not because any such observation made by me may prejudice the case of prosecution or the defence. It appears that the bail is mainly sought I on the point of consistency and for the statutory reasons because of detention of applicant in custody for a period of 2 years. So far the rule of consistency is concerned it requires that facts and circumstances should be similar which condition has not been met in this case. As regards the statutory ground for grant of bail it is not available to the hardened, desperate and dangerous criminals. It has been held by his Lordship Mr. Justice Mamoon Kazi, as Judge of Supreme Court of Pakistan that the incidents of car-snatching and robbery are increasing at alarming rate therefore, the Courts cannot remain oblivious of the objective conditions prevailing in the society. Since the car has been recovered at the potntation of accused and from the contents of F.I.R. it appears that the car was snatched on the pistol point, house-breaking was also committed therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is not entitled for bail on statutory ground as well. The bail application stands rejected. The learned counsel for the applicant has complained that so far charge has not been framed against he accused persons. The trial Court is therefore, directed to frame the charge against the accused persons within a period of two months and to commence the trial within a period of three months. The applicant is further allowed to submit bail application if so advised after recording of material witnesses such as the complainant and the Mashirs of recovery of stolen car. If any such application is submitted after recording of material evidence, the trial Court shall consider the application on merits. H.B.T./S-75/K Application rejected.