GHULAM ABBAS Versus STATE

ORDER

This is an application for bail in a case F.I.R. No. 402/94, dated 6‑9‑1994 for an offence under section 392, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, People's Colony, Faisalabad, against the present petitioner at the instance of Anna Khan complainant.

2. The prosecution story as narrated in the F.I.R, in brief, is that the complainant came to a house near Kahana Hotel with ladies who had gone inside douse No. 1/A. Suddenly four unknown persons forcibly took away his car Under duress. The petitioner was arrested on 12‑12‑1994 in the case and not a single witness has been examined by the learned trial Court. It is, however, submitted by Mr. Javed Iqbal Awan, A.A.‑G., as also the Investigating Officer that the petitioner is involved in some other criminal cases of similar nature and he, therefore, is not entitled to the concession of bail. The statutory period in this matter has expired on 11‑12‑1995. Ordinarily, an accused is entitled to grant of bail if his trial is not concluded within the statutory period of one year in a case of non‑bailable offence other than involving the death penalty. Here in this case, two years have passed and not a single witness has been examined by the trial Court.

3. I have perused the copy of the order‑sheet of the trial Court in which the petitioner does not appear to have caused any delay in the conclusion of his trial. In most of the hearings of the Court the petitioner was not produced before the trial Court from Jail. The trial Court has taken this case in a casual manner. I need not go into the merits of the case. The mere fact that the petitioner is accused in some other cases is not to be taken a ground for refusal of bail, particularly when no finding has so far been recorded against the petitioner of his being a desperate or hardened criminal.

4. In the case titled Muhammad Ashraf alias Achoo v. The State 1990 ALD 635(1) it has been held that mere registration of seven cases against an accused without conviction would be no ground to withhold the grant of bail. In mother case Usman Iftikhar etc. v. The State NLR 1992 Cr.LJ 524), the present Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court granted bail to the accused in spite of there being 18 different F.I.Rs. of dacoity. The material of the other cases against the accused has not been produced before me by the learned A.A.‑G. or by the Investigating Officer. In the absence thereof, the findings as to the petitioner being hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal cannot be formed. In case of Zahid Hussain Shah v. The State PLD 1995 SC 49 their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan laid down the law on the subject of release on bail on statutory grounds as follows:‑‑---

"The right of an accused to be enlarged on bail under the 3rd proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. is a statutory right which cannot be denied under the discretionary power of the Court to grant bail. The right of an accused to get bail under the 3rd proviso of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. is not left to the discretion of the Court but is controlled by that provision. The bail under the.3rd proviso to section 497(1) ran be refused to an accused by the Court only on the ground that the delay in the conclusion of the trial had occasioned on account of any act or omission of the accused or any other person acting on his behalf. The bail under the 3rd proviso of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. can also be refused by the Curt if the case of the accused fell under the 4th proviso of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. In all other cases the Court must grant bail. "

5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to hold that the statutory right of the petitioner to the grant of bail in terms of 3rd proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. may not be denied to the petitioner. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rs. Fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Magistrate, Faisalabad.

6. The learned trial Magistrate is directed to conclude the trial of the case within next four months and he shall submit a report of the conclusion of trial of the case to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court by 30th April, 1997. The prosecution shall be at liberty to move for the cancellation of the bail if the petitioner hampers or ceases any delay in the prosecution of the case.

N.H.Q./G‑34/L Bail allowed.