' Learned counsel for Niaz respondent submits that the case of Niaz is distinguishable from the respondents Muhammad Aslam and Tanvir Anjum who are being represented by another learned counsel; that respondent Niaz was not named in the F.I.R. That the only allegation against him is of joint recovery of the car in question; that even according to the supplementary statement of the complainant, he has not taken part in the dacoity; that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly enlarged him on bail which does not call for interference to his extent.
2. Learned counsel for respondent Tanvir Anjum contends that the allegation against him is only of joint recovery of car which is not admissible in evidence, that neither any money nor anything incriminating was recovered from him; that the F.I.R. Was lodged after 21 days; that the challan has been submitted in the learned trial Court and the copies of the statements of the witnesses have been supplied to the respondents and that a direction be issued to the learned trial Court for expeditious disposal of the case.
3. Respondent Muhammad Aslam has appeared in person. His brother appeared on the last date of hearing meaning thereby that the said respondent had ample time to engage a counsel but, today, he requests for adjournment. He was given full opportunity to say anything on his behalf but he again requested for time. Since the remaining respondents have duly been represented, therefore, this Court would not like to adjourn the case which is' being disposed of today.
4. Learned counsel for the State has not been able to defend the bail granting order to the extent of respondent Niaz while to the extent of respondents Aslam and Tanvir, he submits, that the learned trial Court has gone into deeper appreciation of evidence which is not permissible under the law while dealing with a bail matter and he would not defend the bail granting order to their extent.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, have gone through the record and have also given anxious consideration to their respective submissions made at the bar.
6. In the instant case, while hearing bail petition of co-accused Liaqat Ali (Criminal Miscellaneous No,8430/B of 2004), it came to light that all the three respondents were granted bail by the same learned Additional Sessions. Judge and while issuing notice to the present respondents this Court was of the, prima facie, view that the said bail granting order was against the settled principles of law enunciated from time to time by the superior Courts of the country including that of the apex Court coupled with the heinousness of the offence in which they were involved.
7. I have myself gone minutely through the bail granting order passed in favor of the present respondents and the police record of the case produced before this Court. Since no argument was offered on behalf of Aslam respondent, I have personally looked into the case to his extent so that justice should be done with him. I note that respondent Niaz was not named in the F.I.R. And was got involved in the case through a supplementary statement dated 8-2-2004. Even in the supplementary statement he was not connected with the main part of the case i,e, snatching of the car. Even recovery of the car alleged against A him is a joint one. In the afore-referred circumstances, the notice issued to him by this Court for cancellation of his bail is hereby withdrawn and this Court would not like to interfere with the bail granting order, to his extent, only.
8. So far as case of remaining two respondents, namely Muhammad Aslam and Tanvir Anjum is concerned, they were named in the F.I.R. Along with Liaqat Ali co-accused whose bail application was dismissed by this Court on 3-12-2004 (Criminal Miscellaneous No,8430/B of 2004). The allegation against them is that they snatched the taxi of the complainant while taking the same on rent on the pretext of providing medical aid to a fake patient in the hospital. The recovery of article B belonging to the complainant were also recovered from both the said respondents and Liaqat Ali co-accused. Tape recorder was also recovered from Aslam and Liaqat. Complainant had no animus or motive to falsely implicate the respondents/accused in this case. More so that the offence alleged against them falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Normally in such-like cases, the accused are not named and are involved through supplementary statements as and when any clue about them is known by the complainant or anybody else or the police during the course of investigation. Their names are in the F.I.R. And recoveries are also effected from them. This Court is not satisfied with the reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for granting bail to the said respondents which order is against the principles for the grant of bail settled by the superior Courts of the country. Even otherwise such-like offences are at peak in our society and it is demand of the day that the accused persons, involved in such-like cases, are dealt with iron hands so that it could be curbed from the society and lesson for the others. Until and unless practical steps are not taken, no tranquillity and peace can prevail in the society and nobody would feel secure and safe. Letting loose on the society of such-like persons would mean to give them a chance of repetition of offence. It is a discretionary relief which can only be extended to the accused persons about whom the Court is satisfied that they are not connected with the commission of the offence at all. Merely, on the ground that the case of the accused is of further inquiry without any legal basis would not mean that the accused should be released on bail. Every case, more or less, is of further inquiry which does not mean that every accused should be enlarged on bail. This is in line with the law declared by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sardar Munir Ahmad Dogar v. The State PLD 2004 SC 822.
9. In the afore-referred circumstances, this Court is of the prima facie, view that both the respondents were not entitled to the concession of bail. The bail granted to them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is hereby withdrawn and they shall be taken into custody to be dealt with in accordance with law.