1. ' The petitioners have assailed an order, dated 16-10-1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-II, Peshawar dismissing thereby two bail applications moved by the two petitioners on 6-10-1996.
2. ' The grievance of the petitioners is that petitioner Zakir Hussain was arrested on 15-10-1995 and petitioner Fazal Ghani was arrested on 18-10-1995 and by now the grant of a valuable right of enlargement on bail conferred upon them by the relevant provisions of section 497, Cr.P.C. Has been denied to them.
3. ' Facts of the case, in brief, are that on the basis of a secret information that some people were indulging into prostitution, purchasing, selling and hiring girls for the purposes of illicit sexual intercourse, C.I.A. Police raided a house in Ittahad Colony, Peshawar on 5-10-1995 wherefrom one Khista Rahman alias Torakai and Mst. Farzana were arrested and an F.I.R. Was lodged under section 5, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. On investigation it transpired that there were other accomplices also connected with the heinous nefarious offences as mentioned above. Raids were arranged and Mst. Basmeena aged 12 (+ -) six months (as declared by radiological report) was recovered from the house of petitioner Zakir Hussain on 14-10- 1995. She was medically examined on 17-10-1995 resulting into the report that she could perform sexual intercourse, she was thinly built with 66 lbs weight, 4'-6" height, auxiliary hairs not appeared, pubic hair scanty, labia majora was red, congestion in vaginal introit us, hymen showed old ruptures, vagina could accommodate two fingures easily and sexual interourse had taken place.
4. Vaginal swa bs and Shalwar sent to the Chemical Examiner were also found to be staind with semen. This panorama of medical examination read with her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C.
5. Given on 22-101995 before Magistrate First Class, Peshawar and further read with police records involves petitioner Zakir Hussain to the extent that he is indulging not only in the illegal purchase of non-pubert girls who are nearer to attain puberty, but that he himself indulges into Zina with them, tries methodically to induce puberty earlier than the nature desires, hires them for prostitution, deceitfully causes females of tender age to believe that they are lawfully married to him and cohibits with them. Mst. Basmeena states, "Zakir Hussain is a bad character and used to let minors and ladies for illicit purpose. One Fazal Ghani is also working with Zakir Hussain as a pimp ... Both Zakir Hussain and Fazal Ghani had sent me against huge money to Hayatabad with the customers". She had alleged that she was sent to Lahore for prostitution but being of tender age she was unable to point out the spots where she was sent. She has connected them with Khaista Rahman alias Torakai who happened to be her step-father and was the main culprit who had sold her to petitioner Zakir Hussain at a time she was minor but was used for sexual purposes at that tender age. Medical certificate corroborates her statement and a further corroboration is transpiring from the statement of Mst. Farzana which creates strong circumstantial evidence against the petitioners and some other culprits who have not preferred any petition in this Court.
6. ' The trial Court has made orders under section 512, Cr.P.C. Against absconder co-accused Dilawar, has charged the petitioners and another co-accused in custody on 16-10-1996, has examined P.Ws.
7. Masood Ahmed and Hilal Hyder on 6-11-1996, P.Ws. Shaukat Ali and Rahmanullah on 26-11-1996, two other P.Ws. On 18-12-1996, and according to the last entry in the order sheet of trial Court, dated 26- 2-1997 before me the remaining sureties were summoned for 22-3-1997.
8. ' The petitioners had earlier gone in their first round of the applications for grant of bail to the trial Court and also to the Peshawar High Court and were denied bail on merits. The second round started with an application for bail on the sole ground of statutory delay and has been rejected by the trial Court through the order impugned before the Court.
9. ' At the outset the learned counsel for the State has challenged the jurisdiction of this Court in the circumstances of this case. He has relied on a Full Bench judgment of this Court cited as 1994 M LD 190 and 1993 SCM R 935. In the first case two orders regarding grant of bail in Hudood cases, one passed by the Honorable High Court of Sindh and another by the Honourable Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench was impugned before this Court in its provisional jurisdiction under Article 203- DD of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan hereinafter called the Constitution. The prayer in both the petitions was to cancel the bail granted by the two Honorable High Courts. The ratio decidendi was that it was not evident from any specific provision of law that the orders passed by the High Court were made amenable to revision by this Court. The present case is distinguishable from the cited one in the sense that the order impugned here is that of the trial Court made on 16-10-1996. Earlier order passed by the Honorable Peshawar High Court on 19-12- 1995 is in no way impugned as it was made purely on merits whereas the one impugned before this Court has been made by the lower Court on the only one agitated ground of statutory delay which was not available to the petitioners at the time the orders were made by the Honorable Peshawar High Court. Another case cited is that of the Honourable Shariat Appellate Bench of the apex Court. In this case leave to appeal was granted to consider the legality of a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby he purported to exercise his provisional jurisdiction against the order, dated 11-4-1990 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court. It was decided that this Court had no jurisdiction under Article 203-DD of the Constitution to revise the order of the High Court in exercise of its provisional jurisdicition. I do not propose to revise the order of the Honourable Peshawar High Court, dated 19-12-1995 as it is neither impugned before me nor its contents are, in any way, coming under discussion before me. Hence this preliminary objection by State is repelled. I hold that any interlocutary matter in Hudood cases decided by any Honourable High Court, if comes up in second round before this Court on different grounds in the same case and earlier orders of the said superior Court are in no way by any stretch of though impugned before this Court, then the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 203-DD of the Constitution remains intact.
10. ' The order of the learned trial Court made on 16-10-1996 has been assailed on the sole ground that on the said date statutory period of one year had elapsed from the date of arrest of petitioner Zakir Hussain as he was arrested on 15-10-1995 and only two days were remaining in the lapse of one year in the case of petitioner Fazal Ghani as he was arrested on 18-10-1995 and neither the trial had culminated nor the petitioners had occasioned any act or omission in the delay of the trial; they were neither previous convicts nor were they hardened, desperate or dangerous criminals or involved in terrorism, yet the grant of bail was refused to them on the flimsy ground that the petitions for grant of bail were moved on 6-10-1996 even before the completion of mathematical period of one year. I have heard the leraned counsel for petitioners as well as state in details. I have gone through each and every entry of the order sheet of the trial Court up to 26-2-1997 and have found that the delay in trial has not been occasioned or caused to be occasioned by the petitioners. The contention of the counsel for petitioners that the star witnesses of prosecution namely Mst. Basmena and Mst. Farzana are not interested in the trial as they are not attending the trial Court is falsified by the records: As per order sheet, dated 6-11-1996 P.Ws. MuriaLa Khan, Investigation Officer, Sher Khan, S.-I. Zia-ul-Haq, H.C., Ahmed F.C., Mst. Farzana and Mst. Basmeena were present in the Court but could not be examined due to non-availability of the case property.
11. But even if they are not attending, it transpires that they are at Darul Aman and are not left to move independently. Even otherwise this contention of defence for the purposes of grant of bail on the basis of statutory delay has no nexus with the matter in hand.
12. ' It has been vehemently argued that the petitioners are neither previous convicts nor are they hardened, desperate or dangerous criminals. In this context reliance has been placed on a letter, dated nil received in the registry of this Court on 5-3-1997 issued by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Peshawar to the effect that the character of the petitioners during their confinement in the jail has remained satisfactory. This letter indicates that the petitioners are not desperate persons.
13. Record indicates that they are not previous convicts. However, I do not agree with the counsel for petitioner that they are not dangerous persons. The word 'dangerous', was defined by Lord Viscount Caldecote, L.C.J. Of King's Bench Division in Kinder v. The Mayor, Aldermen and Councillors of the Metropolitan Borough of Camberwell reported as (1944) 2 All ER 315 at page 317 it reads:-- "This decision that it is dangerous is one that depends on a refinement of words to some extent.
14. Almost everything is dangerous from one point of view, but one has to see whether the danger should be reasonably anticipated from the use of things without protection, and here, as I have said, I think danger may be reasonably anticipated."
15. Thus, the word "dangerous" has not only a nexus with the activities in past, but has something to do with reasonable anticipations about conduct in future as well. The offenders dealing in human flesh, purchasing orphans and down-trodden tender girls, like Basmeena, making efforts to generate puberty in them at an age earlier than the nature desires only to satisfy their own lust and also to make money from their flesh, abducting teen-agers for prostitution just as has been done with Mst. Farzana, are the cannibals of worst type and cannot be considered as non- dangerous. Neither they were in the past nor it can be reasonably anticipated that they are going to be in future. While being in jail they are beasts in hibernation and it is reasonably apprehended that if they are let loose, their period of hibernation shall terminate and as ferocious but injured animals they shall turn out to be more dangerous than they were before their arrest. The petition, therefore, fails. However, these observations are of tentative nature and must not affect the mind of the trial Court while deciding the case on sound principles of law and if subsequently any application is repeated for grant of bail on the basis of statutory delay the trial Court is at liberty to grant bail provided it is reasonably satisfied that there are signs of real repentance and that no reasonable anticipation or apprehension now exists that the petitioners are going to be dangerous for the innocent creatures of Allah and hunters for human flesh which bail otherwise law intends to confer upon them.
16. ' In that case the order granting bail must be a speaking order on the point of being dangerous.
17. Since the case is at its final stages of trial, the trial Court is directed to complete it within six months from the receipt of this order with an intimation to this Court.