AMIR JAN BULADI vs THE STATE

ORDER

1. ' The applicant is facing trial under sections 302, 324, 353, 147, 148 and 149, P.P.C., arising out of Crime No,35 of 1996 of Police Station Meeranpur Buriro, in the Court of Special Judge, Suppression of Terrorist Activities Court, Jacobabad.

2. ' On 31-10-1996, S.H.O. Karim Bux of Police Station, Meeranpur Buriro, recorded F.I.R., narrating therein that he received spy information on the said date to the effect that some accused required in Crime No,33 of 1995 of Police Station, Meeranpur Buriro, alongwith other dacoits were available in village Dalel Sunani. On receipt of such information, he contacted S.D.P.O., who assured him that he is sending some other police for his assistance. It is alleged in the First Information Report that the complainant alongwith his staff went towards the said village and surrounded it. At about 6-15 a.m.

3. 14 armed persons came out of the village and went inside the paddy cultivation. They started firing at the police and in retaliation, the police party also made firing. As a result of which, H.C. Lal Muhammad sustained bullet injury and succumbed to injuries. Consequently, the dacoits managed to escape themselves, but the police succeeded in capturing one accused, who subsequently introduced himself as Amir Jan. He was armed with Kalashnikov and 60 bullets. The police subsequently found one of the dacoit lying dead in paddy crop, whose name subsequently was transpired by captured accused to be Rustam Sunani.

4. ' It is contended by Mr. Habibullah Gori learned counsel for the applicant that the accused has remained in jail for more than two years and he is entitled for bail on the ground of statutory delay.

5. He has further urged that the applicant is neither desperate, hardened criminal nor a terrorist. He next argued that the delay has neither been occasioned on the part of accused nor the counsel appearing on his behalf. He has placed reliance on the case of Wazir and another v. The State (PLD 1986 Karachi 646).

6. ' Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahio learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, has vehemently opposed this bail application on the ground that the present applicant is dangerous and desperate. He has placed reliance on the case of Rizwan Hussain v. The State (1999 SCMR 131).

7. ' The perusal of record shows that the applicant was the member of organized dacoits team, who were fully equipped with arms and ammunitions and exchanged firing with a large staff of police comprising almost all the surrounding police stations and as a result of which H.C. Lal Muhammad was killed. The fact that accused was accompanied by notorious dacoits is sufficient to term him as a "terrorist". Terrorist does not mean that one should cause so many incidence of violence or he should be previously convicted. It is sufficient if a man is causing constant fear or is mischievous and troublesome to the people at large. This is high time for the Courts to achieve a goal for curbing the great increase in such type of crimes and at the same time to keep check over the false involvement by agencies. The real and positive result can only be achieved if the Courts to some extent be considerate in changing circumstances of society. The applicant under the circumstances established himself to be amongst one of the ring-leader of dacoit organisation as he was armed with Kalashnikov and was caught at the spot. The dacoits have made the life of rural people uneasy and the High Court could not be oblivious of the high incidence of abduction of people for extorting ransom and dacoits and robberies. The reference can be made to a case of Rizwan Hussain (ibid).

8. ' The reference can also be made to a case of Jalal v. Allahyar and another (1993 SCMR 525), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-- "7. We have gone through the F.I.R. And we find that even the manner of the commission of the offence committed by respondent No,1 in the above two appeals does not indicate that they were hardened, desperate or dangerous criminals. Respondent Allah Yar allegedly had fired one shot at the left arm of one of the deceased and so also Ghulam Rasool as per F.I.R. The above acts attributed to the above respondents do not indicate that they were desperate, hardened or dangerous criminals. If the above respondents could have killed the deceased in a brutal way by cutting the bodies into pieces or by indiscriminately firing by Kalashnikovs or would have dragged the dead bodies, in order to disgrace the deceased and other members of the family, one could urge that the manner of the commission of offence ;was such which indicated that the respondents were hardened, desperate or dangerous criminals in terms of forth proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C., but this is not the case. "

9. ' Their Lordships in the cited case, although had refused to cancel the bail, but at the same time observed that the respondents had not committed the murders in brutal way or fired indiscriminately by Kalashnikov, so as to call them as dangerous. In the instant case, the party of dacoits including the applicant had indiscriminately fired at the police staff and thereby committed murder of one of the constables as stated above. In the case of Jalal v. Allahyar and another (ibid) the Honourable Supreme Court has taken into consideration the cases of Muhammad Hand v. The State (PLD 1986 Karachi 437) and Moundar and others v. The State (PLD 1990 SC 934).

10. ' Under the above circumstances, facts and the law cited above, we are of the view that the applicant is a desperate and dangerous. He is, therefore, not entitled for bail under proviso of section 497, Cr.P.C. His bail is, therefore, declined.