1. ' RAJA QURESHI, J.--- The present applicants in the aforementioned application for bail seek their release during the pendency of their trial in Crime No,1 of 1997 registered at Police Station Shandadpur under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood)
2. Ordinance, 1979 read with section 324, P.P.C.
3. Briefly the prosecution case set up against the applicants, is that on 2-1-1997 at 9-30 a.m. One complainant had lodged the aforementioned F.I.R. At Shandadpur Police Station wherein he had stated that at 8-15 a.m. On the very day he had taken out his motorcycle from his house and was about to start the same when two culprits had reached him. Out of whom one was armed with a TT Pistol, who had pointed out the same towards the complainant and had further directed him to come down of the motorcycle, which the complainant did. Then both the applicants are stated to have sat over the motorcycle and drove away the same. The complainant is stated to have raised cries. However, as an accident of circumstance, the front wheel of the motorcycle got stuck in the drain resulting thereby, the applicants are stated to have come down and attempted to take the front wheel out of the drain. The complainant is stated to have grappled with the culprits who were armed with TT Pistol and the said culprits had fired the same towards the complainant but no harm was caused to the complainant as the fire shot missed the complainant. Once again the culprits are stated to have fired but the complainant had pushed his arm and thereby the bullet of the pistol went upwards and the barrel of the said TT Pistol hit on the head of the complainant.
4. ' The brother Nadeem and the father of the complainant with other neighbours are stated to have reached the spot and had caught hold of the culprits and the complainant had snatched the TT Pistol from the culprit who is stated to have fallen down on the ground and had sustained scratches on his body.
5. ' The magazine of the pistol was stated to have contained four live bullets whereafter both the culprits were tied by the complainant party and were made to sit there till such time S.I.P. Akbar Moosa of Shandadpur Police Station arrived with his subordinate staff and on inquiry the culprit armed with TT Pistol had disclosed his name to be Ghulam Mustafa, who had upon demand failed to produce a valid licence for the weapon in question. The other culprit is stated to have disclosed his name to be Ali Akbar son of Dhani Bux.
6. ' Accordingly, the police brought the accused persons to the police station. Upon completion of investigation, the applicants were sent up to face trial before the Court of the learned Special Judge under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975. The learned counsel for the applicants has raised legal propositions before us in respect of jurisdiction being exercised by the learned Trial Court as the offence alleged against the applicants being under section 17(3) of the Hudood Ordinance, the same has been canvassed before us to be not reflected in the Schedule to the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975. The second contention that has been raised before us is on the ground of statutory delay as the applicants are stated to have remained in custody w,e,f, 2- 1-1997. It has further been canvassed before us that this is a case of ineffective firing. It has further been contended before us that it was in fact a licensed weapon belonging to the applicant and, therefore, the case against the applicants would require further inquiry and the applicants would be entitled to the concession of bail. The learned Additional Advocate-General has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that it will be a question which could be raised after some evidence has come on record and if in the same transaction certain offences are not reflected in the Schedule to the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act yet the trial Court could proceed with the matter.
7. ' Upon hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants, we had asked him as to whether the question of jurisdiction has been raised in terms and manner, the way it is being raised before us i,e, section 17(3) is not reflected to be a scheduled offence under the provisions of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975 and whether the ground of statutory delay which is being raised, before us, was the same raised before the learned trial Court and if the answer to the above question is in affirmative then how has the learned trial Court treated the said two legal propositions. On our query, the learned counsel had fairly stated before us that he was not appearing before the learned trial Court and record does not reflect these two basic questions which are the moot points involved in the matter to have not been raised before the learned trial Court. We feel and are inclined to agree with learned Aditional Advocate-General that let the jurisdiction of the learned trial Court not be usurped by this Court and let the applicants, in the first instance, raise this question before the learned trial Court. Even otherwise, the applicants are alleged to have been caught on the spot after having robbed the complainant of his motorcycle and than had attempted to kill the complainant. Without going into the merits of the case, we would dismiss the application for the present and would direct the learned trial Court to decide the application for bail of the applicants on the grounds raised before us within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.