1. ' SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.---As the prayer in all these three petitions is with regard to the grant of bail to the petitioner in the pending Criminal Accountability Appeals Nos.39, 40 and 41 of 2002, and the grounds raised therein are the same, we are disposing them of through this common order.
2. ' Mr. Abdul Hafeez Lakho says that according to the jail roll furnished by the Jail Authorities, the petitioner has undergone a total sentence of 11 years and 26 days where remissions are counted from the date of conviction. Hence, the petitioner has to undergo the remaining period of 18 years, 11 months and 4 days thus making up the entire period of thirty years given to him in all the three cases, including the period to be undergone due to non-payment of fine. However, a period of 5 years, 3 months and 5 days remission has not been given to the petitioner in the light of the judgments of this Court passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.275 of 2001, whereby it has been held that remissions can only be counted from the date of conviction. Similarly, per learned counsel, another period of nine months has also not been given to the petitioner since the approval of the Inspector General of Prisons is awaited regarding such remissions being granted to the petitioner upon him having passed Adeeb Urdu, 2000 examination and Holy Qur'an Nazra. Per learned counsel, in a number of cases decided by this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court, it has been held that in view of the fact that the issue regarding remissions being counted from the date of arrest or from the date of conviction being sub judice before the Honourable Supreme Court, therefore, in pending matters such remissions viz. From the date of arrest, were awarded in favour of the accused. In this regard, the learned counsel referred to order of this Court dated 21-2- 2003 passed in Cr. Accountability Appeal No.33 of 2002 titled Waryam Fakir v. The State; Abdul Sami, Mangrio v. The State Constitution Petition No.D-453 of 2004; the case of Mian Munir Ahmed v.
3. The State PLD 2002 Kar. 497; Khan Muhammad Mehar v. The State 2003 SCM R 22 Abdul Sattar Dero v. The State Cr. Petition No.423 of 2002 SC as well as the case of Adnan Khawaja v. The State Cr.
4. Petition No.281 of 2004 SC and Ch. Muhammad Shareef v. The Sate Cr. Petition No.314 of 2002 SC.
5. Consequently, learned counsel submits that if the remissions due to the petitioner are counted from the date of arrest, then he would have undergone a major portion of his substantive sentence viz., 16 years out of the total sentence of 24 years even if all the three sentences were taken separately.
6. ' In the circumstances of the case, learned counsel prays that the appeals of the petitioner are pending since the year 2002 and still not decided, therefore, the petitioner be granted bail in all the three cases.
7. ' Learned D.P.G., NAB, has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner basically on the ground that in the case of Khan Muhammad Mehar (supra), while counting the remissions from the date of arrest, the entire portion of the substantive sentence had been served by the accused and hence bail was granted.
8. ' We have heard both the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned D.P.G., NAB.
9. It would be seen that both this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court have given the benefit of remissions to the accused in a number of cases (supra) counting the same from the date of arrest.
10. Similarly, the Honourable Supreme Court, in the case of Adnan Khawaja (supra) as well as a number of other cases including the case of Saeedullah Soomro v. The State 2004 SCM R 660, has allowed bail to the accused where the major portion of the substantive sentence had been served out.
11. In the present case, it would be seen that if the remissions are counted from the date of arrest of the petitioner, 2/3 of the substantive sentence Viz. 16 years out of 24 years, have been undergone by him.
12. ' Consequently, while following the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Adnan Khawaja and Abdul Sattar Dero (supra), we would allow this petition and direct that the petitioner be released on bail provided he submits a solvent surety along with PR bond in the amount of Rs.10 million in each of the three cases, to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court.
13. ' The petitions stand disposed of along with the pending applications.
14. Bail allowed.
15. 2005:YLR 3151 [Lahore] Before Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J ATTAULLAH---Petitioner versus THE STATE---Respondent Crl. Miscellaneous No.9428-B of 2004, decided on 13th January, 2005.
16. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324---Bail, refusal of---Injury attributed to accused was on the chest of victim---Accused was identified in identification parade held on the very next day of his arrest with specific roles by star witnesses of the case---Accused was declared fugitive from law and was arrested after five months of occurrence---Accused was found guilty during investigation---Contention of accused that both parties resided in same vicinity was of no avail to him because as per address given in the body of petition, petitioner and complainant were residing in different villages---Accused involved in such-like cases, did not deserve any discretionary relief of bail, because their enlargement on bail would amount to let them loose on society to repeat such-like acts---Offence in question was against society and until and unless, not curbed with iron hands no peace and tranquillity would prevail in society---Prima facie alleged offence fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C. And accused was not entitled to concession of bail. [p. 3152] A 1989 PCr.LJ 2227 and 1987 M LD 1003 ref. Ch. M.S. Shad for Petitioner.
17. Syed Karamat Ali Naqvi for the Complainant.
18. Nazir Mirza for the State.
19. Date of hearing: 13th January, 2005.
20. ' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---While seeking bail of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this petition, submits that the petitioner has falsely been involved in this case that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R.; that there is four days delay in lodging the F.I.R.; that no money was recovered from the petitioner during the course of investigation; that the petitioner was involved in this case through a supplementary statement at the time when he was in Sialkot; that the identification Parade at such a belated stage is of no value; that both the parties hail from the same village; that the investigation is complete, he is no more required for further investigation and that in the afore-referred circumstances, this case, being one of further enquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail by this Court placed reliance on 1989 PCr.LJ 2227 and 1987 M LD 1003 in support of the submissions made.
2. On the other hand, while opposing the prayer for bail made by the petitioner, learned State counsel submits that although the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. Yet he is specifically involved in the case through a supplementary statement, that the petitioner was identified in jail after having completed all legal formalities; that the injury attributed to him is on the chest; that the delay has been explained; that the parties were not known to each other and hail from different villages which rules out the possibility of having known to each other; that the petitioner was found guilty by the police during identification; that the offence alleged falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. And that since the offence is heinous one, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail by this Court.
3. 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.
4. It is well-known principle of criminal jurisprudence that in such-like cases normally parties are not known to each other. The accused are either involved through supplementary statement or through identification parade. In the instant case, the injury attributed to the petitioner is on the chest of the victim which is attributed to the petitioner. Petitioner was arrested on 22-7-2004.
21. Identification Parade was held on 23-7-2004 and not only the complainant but his father also identified the petitioner in jail with specific roles who are star witnesses of the case. He was declared fugitive- from law and was arrested after five months of the occurrence. The petitioner was found guilty during the investigation. So far as the contention of the petitioner that both the parties reside in the same vicinity is of no avail to the petitioner because as per address given in the body of the petition, petitioner is resident of Village "Harbans" while, as per address given in the F.I.R., the complainant is resident of Village "Pandori" in this case identification Parade was held promptly. Normally in such-like, the accused persons are not traced out and if, after hectic efforts, they are apprehended, taking of such-like pleas are very common. The accused involved in the cases, like the one in hand, do not deserve any discretionary relief of bail because their enlargement on bail would amount to let loose them on the society to repeat suchlike acts. Nobody is safe in his house, the people are robbed in the streets and or on the roads, they are deprived of their hard-earned money and even the accused do not feel hesitation to take lives of the people. It is an offence against the society and until and unless if not curbed with iron hands no peace and tranquility prevail in the society. The precedent case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the above- referred circumstances, this Court is of the, prima facie, view that the offence alleged against the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. And the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. Resultantly, this petition is hereby dismissed having no merit.