ORDER S. M. ZUBAIR, J.- The petitioner who are involved in a case FIR No. 101/96, dated 24.4.1996, Police Station Gogera, District Okara, under Section 393 PPC read with Sections 17/6/79, Islamic Laws, have applied for their post-arrest hail.
2. Briefly the case against the petitioners is that they boarded in a wagon and when wagon proceeded towards Faisalabad, Muhammad Habib petitioner got up and placed pistol on the temporal region of the driver and asked him to stop the wagon, whereupon the co-accused Nazeer Ahmed stood up with pistol and they asked the passengers to hand over their belongings to them and if any body tried to raise alarm he would be done to death. The driver showed alertness and he took the wagon to the place where police was standing. On seeing the police they raised alarm and petitioners on seeing the police tried to fled away but police apprehended them at the spot.
So, they have been involved in this case under Section 393 PPC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are involved in a case which docs not fall within the prohibitory clause as they could not materialise their intention of robbery.
The petitioners are behind the bars since 24.4.19% without any meaningful progress in the trial, by these circumstances, the petitioner are entitled to the grant of bail.
4. Learned counsel for the State assisted by police officer has opposed this. Bail application. He submitted that Muhammad Habib, petitioner is desperate and hardened criminal as he is also involved in two cases i.e FIR No. 9/91 dated 6.1. PW1, under Section 382 PPC Police Station Shorekot and case No. 102/96, dated 24.9.1996, Police Station Gogera, so he is not entitled to the bail even though his case does not fall within the prohibitory clause. With respect to Nazir Ahmed, petitioner No. 2 he submitted that both of the accused were arrested at the spot. They attempted to rob the passengers of the wagon, so offence being heinous one, they are also not entitled for the grant of bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. Admittedly, the petitioners are involved in a case which does not fall within the prohibitory clause. The grant of bail is rule in such like cases whereas refusal is an exception. There is nothing on the record to show that Nazir Ahmed, petitioner No. 2 is involved in any other case except this one, so I direct that Nazir Ahmad, petitioner .No. 2, should be released provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.
50,000.00 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Iliaqa/Judicial Magistrate Gogera, District Okara. With respect to Muhammad Habib, petitioner No. 1, as he is involved in two cases of similar nature, it is not a fit case for the concession of bail to be extended to him. So, his bail petition is dismissed. Copy Dasli.