ORDER
SHEET
------------------------------------------------------
Date Order
with signature of Judge
------------------------------------------------------
Dated of hearing 14.07.2014
Mr. Muhammad Waseem Sammo Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. Ali Haider Saleem APG alongwith SIP Bashir
Additional SHO of P.S. Gizri.
&&&&&&&&&&
SYED HASAN AZHAR
RIZVI J; First
Bail Application bearing No.604/2013 filed by the present Applicant before this
Court was dismissed on merit vide order dated 008.07.2013. Thereafter, the
Applicant filed Bail Application in Sessions Case No.19/2013 on the ground of
statutory delay but the same was dismissed by the learned IVth Additional Sessions
Judge, Karachi South vide order dated 12.06.2014, hence this bail Application
is filed on the ground of statutory delay.
2. The brief facts as narrated in the FIR
are that on 27.03.2013 at about 1052 hours accused persons armed with weapons
entered into the Habib Bank Limited, Islamic Branch Sehar Commercial Area,
Phase-7, DHA, Karachi, snatched the rifle of the security guard and on
resistance of the security guard accused by firing and hitting butt of the
rifle injured the security guard. Accused persons snatched cash of Rs.12,52,684/- from a counter of the bank and fled away by making
fires towards the security guards and staffs of the bank in a Suzuki Mehran car
bearing Registration No.AUX-393 parked outside the bank . One accused received
injury from the firing made by the accused persons. Complainant stated in the
FIR that he and his staff can identify the culprits whenever produce before
them.
3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant contended
that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is in any
way guilty of an office punishable with death, imprisonment for life or even 10
years. Learned Counsel urged that the Applicant is in custody continuously from
05.04.2013 but only charge is framed before the Trial Court on 17.01.2014 and
not a single witness has been examined and such delay in disposal of the case
amounts to abuse of the process of law and the Applicant is entitled for grant
of bail on the ground of statutory delay. Learned Counsel for the Applicant
further argued that the Applicant is innocent and he has falsely been involved
in the present case. He further urged that the Applicant is neither a dangerous
criminal nor previous convict and there is no
justification to withheld the bail of the Applicant after expiry of the
statutory period of more than one year. Learned Counsel for the Applicant
further contended that the Applicant is local resident of Karachi and there is
no likelihood of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution witnesses, if
released on bail. He prayed that the Applicant be released on bail on the
ground of statutory delay as such delay is not on the part of the Applicant. To
support his contentions he placed reliance upon PLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Lahore) 113
(Munir Ahmad versus State and another), PLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Lahore) 5 (Shahbaz Ali
and another versus State and others), 2013 YLR 2683 (Umair Ashraf versus the
State and another), 2013 MLD 997 (Zambeer versus the State) and 2013 P.Cr.L.J.
1162 (Naimat Khan versus the State).
4. Mr. Ali Haider Salim learned AAG
vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Applicant and submitted that the
charge has been framed before the Trial Court therefore, Applicant may not be enlarged
on bail and direction be issued to the learned Trial Court for early conclusion
of the Trial. He further contended that first bail application of the Applicant
was rejected on merits and he is not entitled for grant of bail on statutory
delay.
5. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Waseem Sammo Advocate
for the Applicant, Mr. Ali Haider Saleem APG and perused the material available
on record with their assistance.
6. This bail application has been filed
solely on the ground of statutory delay and learned Counsel for the Applicant
has placed on record certified copies diary-sheets of the case pending before
the learned Trial Court commencing from 06.04.2013 to 11.06.2014. From perusal
of the case diaries, it reveals that since arrest of the Applicant accused is
behind the bars. It further reveals that charge in the matter was framed on
17.01.2014 and not a single witnesses has been
examined as yet. Applicant/accused has remained behind the bars since
05.04.2013 more than fourteen months and according to newly added provision in
Section 497, Cr.P.C. the delay in trial of the Applicant/accused has neither
been occasioned by an act or omission of the accused or any person acting on
his behalf nor applicant is a previously convicted offender for an offence
punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
7. Report was called from the concerned SSP
and Superintendent, Central Prison, Karachi and vide report dated 10.07.2014
submitted by the Superintendent, Central Prison the Applicant is required in
two cases viz. FIR No.129/2013 (present crime) and FIR No.363/12 and according
to report during the period of confinement at this prison the conduct of the
Applicant is remained satisfactory. According to learned Counsel for the
Applicant the Applicant has been released on bail in FIR No.363/2013 and only
in present crime the applicant is in custody.
8. In view of the above, I don’t find any
reason to disallow the instant bail application filed by the Applicant on the
ground of statutory delay when as per diary sheets the delay is not on the part
of the Applicant and he is behind the bars since his arrest i.e. 05.04.2014 and
for more than fourteen months the Applicant is in custody.
9. Above
are the reasons of my short order whereby Applicant was granted bail
on the statutory ground subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of
Rs.1000,000/- (Rupees One Million only) and P.R. Bond
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. Trial Court was
directed to conclude the trial within a period of three months from the date of
passing of the order and submit progress report on weekly basis through MIT-II
of this Court.
10. Observations made hereinabove are of
tentative nature and the trial Court shall not be influenced by any such
observation.
Karachi
Dated :________________ JUDGE