' MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.---Manzoor son of Atta Muhammad, resident of Teekan, Tehsil and District D.I. Khan seeks bail as he is involved in case F.I.R. No,461, dated 30-9-2008 under sections 452/506/34, P.P.C. Of Police Station Saddar, D.I. Khan. His request has been turned down by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, D.I. Khan and learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, D.I. Khan vide orders, dated 8-10-2008 and 28-10-2008 respectively.
2. The facts of the case are that vide F.I.R. No,461, dated 30-9-2008 Khalid son of Fazal Dad lodged a report at 1245 hours to the effect that he along with the inmates of his house were lay asleep in their house. At 0115 hours from the side of his neighbour Umar Hayat, Khyzer Hayat son of Fazl-ur- Rehman, resident of Kulachi at present Sherdil Kot, Manzoor son of Atta Muhammad, Caste Baloch, resident of Teekan and two Other unknown persons duly armed with Kalashnikovs entered in his house. On the noise so raised, he was awakened and saw that at the gun-point they asked the inmates of the house about the money and ornaments. On their resistance, the accused hit his brother Latif and his father Fazal Dad with the 'Butts' of their rifles. On raising hue and cry by the inmates, Khyzer Hayat fired in the air in order to intimidate them and thus, he charged all the four for the commission of the offence. Resultantly, the local police registered the case under the above sections of law.
3. Muhammad Adnan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been wrongly charged in the F.I.R. The occurrence has taken place on 30-9-2008 at 1-15 a.m. But the report has been lodged at 1230 hours although the distance between the venue of occurrence and the Police Station is 7/8 kilometers. It was also argued that no recovery has been effected from the possession of the petitioner. It was also argued that the offence with which the petitioner is charged does not come within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And thus, prayed for the release of the petitioner on bail. Reliance was placed on the dicta handed down in the cases of Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34), Faqir Hussain v. Asad Ali Khan and another (2003 PCr.LJ 518 Peshawar) and Sarwar v. The State (2000 PCr.LJ 82 Lahore).
4. Muhammad Irfan, learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that the petitioner has been directly charged in the F.I.R. He was neighbor of the complainant and there is no doubt about identification of the accused. It was also submitted that the offence for which the petitioner is charged, comes within the purview of section 457, P.P.C. Which amounts to lurking house trespass with intention to commit offence and thus, the local police has applied a wrong section of law.
5. Mr. Sanaullah Shamim Gandapur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant.
6. I have gone through the record of the case and have perused the data available on the file.
7. Perusal of the record would show that this is not the quantum of sentence which matters but the way and the venue of crime which the petitioner has committed by entering into the house of the complainant and at gunpoint had asked the inmates of the house about the money and the ornaments. The sacredness of the house has been violated by the petitioner and his absconding co-accused and all the A inmates of the house were given 'Butt' blows as well as firing in order to criminally intimidate the inmates. The statements of the inmates of the house namely Muhammad Latif, Fazal Dad, Mst. Saidu Bibi, Mst. Miran Bibi, Rabnawaz and Umar Hayat have fully corroborated the version of the complainant. No animosity has been pointed out for false charge.
8. It is not that in every case Which is not punishable with death, transportation for life or then years'
R.I. The concession of bail should be extended to an accused person. If on the data available on the record it is proved that the accused had shown high handedness and has crossed the limits of decency and morality, then in non-bailable offence he will not be entitled to the concession of bail as held in the case of Muhammad Siddique v. Mst. Imtiaz Begum and 2 others (2002 SCM R 442) and thus, in view of the dictum laid down in the quoted authority, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail at this stage.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, this bail application fails which is dismissed. However, the prosecution is directed to submit complete challan to the Court within one month and thereafter the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial positively within three months.
10. Before parting with this judgment, it is observed that if any fresh development takes place during the proceedings, the petitioner would be at liberty to move afresh for his release on bail and this order will not be a hurdle in his way to seek the concession of bail.