1. ' Accused/applicant is facing trial before the Sessions Court before Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South for offence punishable under section 17(3), Offence Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 registered under F.I.R. No,230 of 1994 by Kharadar Police Station.
2. ' Briefly, the facts are that the complainant Hasan Ali is the Manager Muslim Commercial Bank, Kharadar Branch, reported the matter to the said police station that he was on duty on 11-7-1994.
3. One person aged about 30/35 broke into his cabin and directed him to open the safe. In the meantime, he also found that the rifle of P.C. Gul Muhammad, who was guard of the bank, was being snatched. Three/four other persons also surrounded the cashier. They asked the Manager to keep silent and guided him to the strong room alongwith other staff. The complainant noticed that cashier Islam Ali was bleeding and the gun of the private security guard was lying in the gun room.
4. Constable Gul Muhammad informed the police on telephone. The police arrived and then constable Gul Muhammad and gun man Murad saw a person in custody of police whose name they came to know as Abdul Wahab (present applicant). A white bag was secured from Abdul Wahab which contained robbed amount. It was opened and Rs,34,95,567 and prize bonds worth Rs,4,75,000 were found in it. During the interrogation, the applicant/accused disclosed names of co-accused Imdad Ali, Shah Muhammad, Waheed Ali and another friend of Shah Muhammad.
5. During investigation, police also arrested co-accused Imdad Ali whereas six other accomplices of the applicant/accused are still absconders. The applicant, after having failed to obtain bail from the trial Court, has filed this application. The bail plea has been pressed on solitary ground of statutory delay which has occurred in conclusion of trial. The applicant/accused is in custody since 11-7-1994 when he was caught red-handed by police and is still in custody ever since the day. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel that the copy of diaries filed by him show that not a single adjournment has been obtained by the applicant and the case has been delayed not on account of any act or omission on the part of the applicant or his representative. This delay can only be attributed to prosecution with the sole object to keep the accused in custody as long as they can. Learned counsel has referred to the authorities reported in Ghulam Abbas v. State 1997 M LD 1743, 1997 SCM R 361 which is a D.B. Decision in case of Jagat Ram v. The State and a Full Bench authority reported in 1997 SCM R 412 in the case of Muhammad Rafique v. The State. He has also referred to the authority reported in 1993 SCM R 535 in case of Jalal v. Allah Yar and others. He also referred to a chain of authorities pertaining to the issue of statutory delay. It is finally argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that, in view of the authorities referred by him, the applicant/accused is entitled to the grant of bail as of right.
6. The ground on which the bail has been refused by the lower Court is that there is a chain of cases against the present applicant as such he is a dangerous and hardened criminal and not entitled to bail though the learned lower Court has recorded that the statutory delay has occurred not on account of the accused but on the prosecution. It is the settled law that mere fact that the accused is involved in a number of cases will not disentitle him to the grant of bail unless he has been established to be a hardened criminal by the Court of law.
7. ' The learned A.A.-G. Frankly concedes to the situation and states that the diaries produced by the applicant do not show that the delay in conclusion of trial has occasioned due to any act or omission on the part of accused or his representative. Under these circumstances, he has no objection if bail is granted to the applicant on the ground of statutory delay. Under these circumstances and in view of the authorities referred to by the learned counsel for the applicant, I am clear in my mind that the delay has not occasioned on account of any act or omission by the accused or his representative which makes him entitled to the grant of bail on this solitary ground.
8. In the circumstances of the case, I accept his bail plea and direct that he be released on bail upon furnishing one solvent surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (rupees two lacs) with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court.