1. ' TUFAIL H. EBRAHIM, J.---The applicants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 25- 10-2010, whereby the learned III-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East has preferred this application, which had originally arisen out of F.I.R. No,499 of 2010 registered at Police Station Aziz Bhatti for the offence punishable under sections 395/337-H(2), P.P.C.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that there was some negotiations between the complainant and the applicants for sale of laptop (computer) for the sale consideration of Rs,8,00,000. The deal was to be completed on 8-7-2009 at the residence of the applicants, however, when the complainant alongwith his servant Ghulam Hussain reached to the house of the applicants, the applicants did not deliver the goods but demanded the money. On refulsale applicants Nos.2 and 3 and their security guard caught hold of complainant and his servant Ghulam Hussain and snatched Rs,8,00,000 from them on the show of weapon. On the complainant raising hues and cries, the applicant No,1 fired in the air, thereafter the complainant and his servant ran away.
3. ' Per learned counsel for the applicants there is inordinate and unexplained delay of 13 months in lodging the F.I.R. And deliberation and consultations cannot be ruled out. Per learned counsel it is highly improbable that the applicants have committed the alleged offence in their own house. Per learned counsel no private witness has been associated, although it was alleged that firing was made by the applicant No,1 at the time of incident. Pe- learned counsel applicant No,1 is a sick and infirm person and if he is not released on bail, his health will further be deteriorated and will be detrimental to his life. Per learned counsel no one was injured in the alleged firing and the applicants are rotting in jail and no longer required in investigation and there is no chance that the applicants would tamper the evidence.
4. ' Learned A.P.-G. Has strongly opposed the grant of bail to the applicants on the grounds that the applicants are hardened criminals and number cases, similar in nature have been registered against them. Per learned A.P.-G. The complainant was under the threats of the applicants and on coming to his knowledge that the applicants have been arrested in some other case, has approached the police and lodged the present F.I.R. Per learned A.P.-G. The applicants are hardened criminals and if they are released on bail there is likelihood that they would repeat the same offence.
5. 'I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.P.-G., perused the material placed before me. The applicants have been specifically named in the F.I.R. With the specific role assigned to them. There is no mala fide or enmity between the applicants and the complainant to falsely implicate the applicants. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. Has been explained. As per police papers the applicants are also involved in several other cases of similar nature and prima facie it can be inferred from the record that the applicants have repeated the same offence and if released on bail there is likelihood that they would repeat the same offence. There is no cavil to the proposition that the mere registration of other F.I.Rs, against the applicant cannot by itself considered as a ground for refusal of concession of bail to the applicant, but in my humble opinion the circumstance of the case and the gravity of the offence should be considered.
6. ' In the circumstances as aforesaid, it is my tentative opinion that the applicants are not entitled for the concession of bail at this stage. There is specific allegation against the applicants and material is B available on record to suggest nexus of the applicants with the commission of the offence.
7. ' This criminal bail application is hereby dismissed. Needless to mention that the above observations are only tentative in nature and should not influence the trial Court in arriving at a just and fair decision, based on the evidence to be adduced at trial. I further direct the trial Court to decide this case expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months.