'HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.---Muhammad Ramzan, Azizullah, Samiullah and Muhammad Nazeer, the petitioners, by submitting this application, have sought the concession of post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,349 of 2008, dated 2-10-2008, registered with Police Station Kaloor Kot, District Bakkar, in respect of offences under sections 440, 337-H(ii), 148, 149, 109, P.P.C. Read with section 7 of ATA.
2. In support of this application learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the F.I.R. Was lodged against the petitioners with an inordinate delay of 2-1/2 hours; that the complainant has thrown the net very wide inasmuch as 18 people have been involved in this case; that during the investigation 11 co-accused of the petitioners were declared innocent by the Investigating Officer that four co-accused of the petitioners have already been allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge; that while lodging the F.I.R. The complainant levelled the allegations in a generalized form and no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioners; that the offence under section 7, ATA, has already been deleted by a Division Bench of this Court; that though the petitioners are involved in numerous cases, but none of the petitioners has ever been convicted by any Court of law; that in the peculiar circumstances of this case the petitioners' case requires further inquiry, and that none of the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners fall within the prohibitory clause.
3: Conversely, learned APG has opposed this petition vehemently by submitting that the way the alleged offence was committed in this case shows that the petitioners behaved like desperadoes; that a huge and colossal loss was caused to the movable as well as immovable property of the complainant party; that though the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners does not fall within the prohibitory clause but they cannot be allowed bail on the said ground as a matter of right.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. A bare perusal of the F.I.R. Would show that the offence charged with was committed in a very desperate and dreadful manner. The accused, according to the complainant, after arming themselves to the teeth, reached the showroom of the complainant party, started reckless firing and launched a frenzied attack. Thereafter, the complainant's flying coach, valuing Rs,10,00,000 was enormously wrecked/ damaged, and the window panes of complainant's showroom were smashed, whereafter, all the accused stormed into the showroom of complainant's nephew, namely Maqbool Ahmed Khan, and vandalized and defaced four tractors, valuing Rs,16,00,000 by indiscriminate firing. The complainant further claims that the accused had attempted on the life of afore-mentioned Maqbool Ahmed Khan. He, however, saved himself by adopting evasive measures. Thereafter, according to the complainant, the accused party reached Chandni Chowk and after resorting to firing, thrashed tenants of the said market and they were forced to shut up their shops. The matter did not end here and, according to the complainant, the accused party proceeded towards the market of Qari Fateh Khan and the owners of the said market were also forced to close their business and shopkeepers were forced to run away. Due to the highhandedness of the accused the transport also came to halt. Thereafter, all the accused made Shah Jahan, PW's house a shooting-gallery. The complainant claims that the accused hurled threats on him and vowed that they would not allow the markets and showrooms to function. In view of the said allegations while lodging the F.I.R., offence under section 7 ATA was also added.
However, on a writ petition filed by the accused party, a Division Bench of this Court, transferred the case from the Anti-Terrorism Court to the Court of general jurisdiction. The said order was challenged by the complainant before the honourable Supreme Court through C.P.No,1777-L of 2008, which was disposed of with the following observations:--- "The learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing the case at some length, does not press this petition at this stage. He, however, states that the petitioner would like to re-agitate the matter--- transfer of the case to the Anti Terrorism Court at the appropriate stage before the appropriate forum. Therefore, this petition is disposed of as having not been pressed."
6. In the said backdrop the petitioners cannot be allowed bail simply on the ground that none of the offences allegedly committed by them falls within the prohibitory clause. It is true that in cases falling outside the prohibitory clause normally bail is not refused by the Courts, but accused cannot claim bail on the said ground as a matter of right, rather the bail can be refused even in such like category of cases. Reliance in this regard is placed on the cases of Muhammad Siddique v. Imtiaz Begum and 2 others 2002 SCM R 442, and Muhammad Afzal v. The State, C.P. No,59-L of 2006 decided on 15-3-2006. It is true that, in this case, some of the accused were found innocent during the investigation, but the petitioners cannot be granted bail on the said ground, inasmuch as they were found guilty by the investigating officer.
7. A perusal of the police file would reveal that the damaged/wrecked flying coach which was riddled with bullet holes and the three tractors pock-marked with bullets were taken into possession by the investigating officer. Similarly, 47 bullets shells were recovered by the investigator from the place of occurrence. Photographs of pockmarked showrooms and shops were also procured/taken by the investigating officer with the help of a professional photographer.
After the arrest of the accused a 44 bore rifle was also taken into possession on the pointing out of Muhammad Ramzan, the petitioner. Similarly, the crime weapons were recovered from the possession of Azizullah, Samiullah and Muhammad Nazir, the other three petitioners. Tentatively speaking, the prosecution is equipped with sufficient incriminating material against the petitioners which demonstrates their vandalism and high-handedness. Such like people/desperadoes cannot be let loose on the society.
8. The previous record of the petitioners is also not bright one, rather it is very pathetic, shocking and alarming, inasmuch as Muhammad Ramzan-petitioner has a long list of 13 criminal cases against his name. The said list includes the cases of murder, dacoity, robbery etc. The list of the cases along with certified copies of the F.I.Rs, were produced by the complainant during the proceedings of previous application bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No,3694-B of 2009 filed by the petitioners, which was dismissed in default on 3-6-2009. According to the said record, Samiullah and Muhammad Nazir, the petitioners, are involved in five criminal cases each of similar nature, whereas Azizullah, the fourth petitioner, is also not far behind them, inasmuch as he is also implicated in three criminal cases.
9. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioners states that none of the petitioners is a previous convict, therefore, mere registration of criminal cases against them cannot be made a ground for refusal of bail to them. Be that as it may, the registration of numerous criminal cases against the petitioners shows that they are not men of clean slate and in case of grant of bail the chances of repetition of the crimes and jumping the bail by them cannot be ruled out.
10. For all that has been stated above, the petitioners have not been found to be entitled to the concession of post-arrest) bail, therefore, the application is dismissed.