Applicant Mitho Kasai alias Hadi Bux by caste Ansari, who is detained in Crime No.23 of 1986, Latifabad Police Station; under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, had earlier approached this Court for the grant of bail on statutory ground and his prayer was refused by me with the following direction:-- "The fate of the applicant, however, cannot be left undecided and even a desperate, dangerous and a hardened criminal has got a right to claim an early trial. I would, therefore, direct the trial Court to conclude the case within a period of six months from the receipt of this order. It will be open to the applicant to repeat his bail application on the ground of statutory delay, if for reasons beyond the control of the trial Court the case is not concluded:"
No progress was, however, made in this case as on almost all the dates of hearing the applicant, who is presently confined in Central Prison, Sukkur, was not produced. Besides this case the applicant is involved in three other cases, i.e. Crime No.41 of 1981, Stuart Ganj Police Station Shikarpur, under section 302, 363/34, -P.P.C. And section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, in which he has been acquitted on 31-7-1991, a copy of the judgment is placed on record. The applicant who was also involved in Crime No.22 of 1984, Garhi Yasin Police Station, under section 307, 353, P.P.C.
And section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, was granted bail by this Court, and incidentally by me while sitting at Sukkur Bench. The applicant was also granted bail by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, in Crime No.39 of 1984, Gaheja Police Station under section 307, 392, P.P.C., and section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. It is thus obvious that except this case, in which the present application is moved, the applicant is either acquitted or he is on bail in remaining cases.
There is also no dispute that the applicant is in continuous detention since 30-4-1989 and the delay has not been occasioned on his part or on- the part of any other person acting on his behalf.
The offence with which the applicant is charged is not punishable with death and consequently, he was entitled to the grant of bail under third proviso to. Subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C., after one year of his arrest. The applicant has almost completed a period of three years and there are no immediate prospects for an early disposal of this case. Mr. Ghulam Moeenuddin Baloch, learned counsel for applicant has placed reliance upon the case of Khan alias Haji Khan v. The State reported in 1991 P Cr. L J 323, wherein it was observed by this Court that even a previously convicted offender is entitled to the grant of bail if the delay in disposal of his case is shocking. In the case of Jalal and another v. The State reported in 1988 P Cr. L J 1596, a learned Judge of this Court allowed bail to accused persons, who were in custody for four years, in spite of the finding that they were desperate, dangerous and hardened criminals.
2. Faced with this situation, the learned AA: G. Has also conceded to the grant of bail to applicant as according to him the delay in disposal of this case is shocking which amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
3. Having regard to the above factual and legal position, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to the grant of bail under third proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Accordingly, bail is allowed to him, but --since he is reportedly a dangerous, desperate and a hardened criminal, I would direct his release on furnishing security in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) with two sureties of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./M-1662/K