1. Since the order of rejection of the bail applications of the present applicants is one, but two separate bail applications have been filed before this Court, I propose to decide both the applications by this single order.
2. The applicants seek bail in Crime No.405/86 of Police Station Gulberg, Karachi (West) registered on 24-9-1986 under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood)
3. Ordinance, 1979. The bail application of the present applicants was rejected by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge (East) Karachi and Link Judge of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Aijaz Ahmed the proprietor of United Investment Company sold various goods on instalments. On the day of incident at about 12-00 noon while the complainant and his staff were busy with their office work they found about 6 persons, who entered the office and were carrying big bags in their hands, the description whereof is given in the F.I.R. Some of them were carrying klashnikov in their hands and by show of arms they committed dacoity in the office of the complainant. It is alleged in the F.I.R. That total cash of Rs.13,50,000 and ornaments from the drawers besides some other cash were robbed. The culprits made good their escape whereafter the complainant informed the police on telephone and lodged the report. Both the applicants were arrested on 26-6-1987 and have been shown as culprits of Crime No.405/86.
5. It is contended by the learned Advocate that other accused, namely, Zulfiqar, Younus, Deepak, Hatim, Kashmir and Sher Muhammad were arrested and in identification test they were picked out by the complainant and the witnesses. It has also been pointed out that besides the 2 applicants and the 6 accused named above, some more persons have also been sent up by the police in the same case, when the number of the culprits as stated in the F.I.R. Was only 6. According to the learned Advocate, the only allegation against the applicants is that their names are given by the co-accused, who, during interrogation stated that the applicants were also shareholders in the robbed property. Ever since the date of their arrest, the applicants were not put to identification test. It is also contended that the statement of one accused during investigation cannot be used against co-accused nor would be binding upon him. For applicant Zafar Ali it is contended that there is no case pending against him and even on the ground of statutory delay he is entitled to bail.
6. In support of their contentions that the only material on record being the statement of co-accused was not enough to involve the applicants in the case, particularly when there was no recovery of the robbed property and no identification nest was held, reliance has been placed on Muhammad Naeem and others v. The State 1990 P Cr. L J 272. In that case on similar facts bail was allowed to the petitioners. On the point of statutory delay, the learned Advocate have placed reliance on 1988 P Cr. L J 1409 and have pointed out that for holding a person as desperate, dangerous and hardened criminal, no hard and fast rules could be enunciated for holding as to when a person could be said to be a desperate, dangerous and hardened criminal. It would depend on facts of each individual case.
7. Mr. Shaukat H. Zubaidi, the learned AA: G. Has contended that the only evidence against the present applicant is that they were named by the co--accused to be the shareholders in the property robbed from the complainant's office. The D.S.P. Chaudhry Abdul Hameed, who conducted the investigation of this case, was also present in Court and he stated that the co-accused in this case had named the present applicants to be the shareholders and besides that there was neither any recovery from the applicants nor they were put to identification test after their arrest. The learned State counsel has pointed out that the lower Court has observed that the applicant Zafar Ali is desperate, dangerous and hardened criminal. But in spite of his repeatedly having asked the D.S.P. To furnish the proof of that, nothing was brought on record and as such he cannot say as to whether the observation of the trial Court in respect of the accused War Ali is based on same record.
8. Mr. Muhammad Saleh G. Memon, appearing for the applicant Zafar Ali, at this stage admitted that there are some other cases pending against this applicant Zafar Ali, but in most of the cases, the allegation is similar in nature as in the present case.
9. The learned State counsel has conceded to the grant of bail to the applicants on merits as well as on statutory delay of more than 2 years in the disposal of the case.
10. Accordingly, I grant bail to the applicant Abdul Qadir son of Muhammad Idrees and War Ali son of Abdul Rashid. Each one of the applicants shall furnish two sureties each solvent in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.