1. ' GHULAM RABBANI, J.--- These are two bail applications filed by applicant Allah Bux. In both these cases common question of law and fact arise, therefore, both of them are being disposed of by this single order.
2. ' The brief facts of Criminal Bail Application No,356 of 1998 are that applicant alongwith other co- accused armed with guns abducted complainant Mehrab Khan and 4 others abductees namely Taj Muhammad, Jan Muhammad, Nabi Bux and Mitho Khan and were ultimately taken to Bhago Thoro mountain where the 3 abductees namely, complainant, Mitho Khoro and Nabi Bux were let off on the assurance that they would arrange for ransom which was paid to the co-accused Dhano in the mountain resulting in the release of remaining abductees. This incident as per F.I.R. Has taken place on 25-12-1998 and the F.I.R. Was lodged on 13-4-1993 by the complainant Mehrab Khan explaining therein that at that time the activities of the dacoits were in full swing and due to fear F.I.R. Could not be lodged and it was being done on normalization of the law and order situation.
3. ' Brief facts of Criminal Bail Application No,357 of 1998 are that the complainant who is a Compounder and worked with Dr. Rafique was sent by Dr. Rafiq with co-accused Gulab to his village for providing medical treatment to his wife. On insistence of co-accused Gulab the complainant stayed at his house where during night time at about 10-00 p.m. He was overpowered by co-accused Gulab who were armed with kalashnikov rifles and guns and after abducting him took him in a forest near Pishorpur lake. He was made to write a letter to his relative for paying three lacs rupees to the dacoits for his release. His uncle Abdul Latif paid Rs,80,000 to co-accused Dhani Bux and applicant Allah Bux who released him with a threat that in case he lodged a report he would be abducted and done to death. The complainant, however, lodged his report on 16-2- 1992 explaining that he could not lodge the report at that time but when conditions became normal he gave application to the Army Headquarter which was received by the S.H.O. And the report was also lodged by the complainant.
4. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Advocate- General, Sindh and we have also gone through the material available on record.
5. ' The learned counsel for the applicant in his arguments took the ground of delay in lodgment of the two F.I.Rs, and contended that inordinate delay so ()miring is without any satisfactory explanation. He further submitted that he only presses the ground of statutory delay in conclusion of the trial not attributable to the applicant or his counsel and requested that the applicant be released on bail since he has remained in jail for over five years after his arrest on 6-6-1993. He placed his reliance on case-law reported in Rahim Bux v. The State PLD 1986 Kar. At page 224 and Shamon Jatoi v. The State 1996 PCr.LJ 783.
6. ' The learned Additional Advocate-General, Sindh concurred with the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has remained in jail for period of more than two years. He, however, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicant on the ground that the case of the Ppplicant falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. He submitted that the applicant is a hardened, desperate criminal and is involved inasmuch as four cases including two murder cases and two cases of abduction for ransom. He pointed to us to a report of Superintendent Central Prison, Hyderabad already placed on record.
7. ' We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments of learned counsel, learned Additional Advocate-General and also the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the applicant.
8. ' In the case of Shamon Jatoi v. The State 1996 PCr.LJ 783. Our learned brothers Abdul Latif U.
9. Qureshi and Ali Muhammad Baloch, JJ. Granted bail in Special Case No,37 of 1993 tried by the Court of Special Judge (S.T.A.) Court Karachi where the bail application was moved on the ground of delay even when the accused was found involved in more than 10 cases and also a previous convict convicted in an offence punishable for ten years. While granting bail they observed as follows:-- "In the instant case out of 10 cases listed against the applicant/accused, he has been acquitted/released on bail in 8 cases. He cannot be termed as desperate or dangerous, because accused is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty, and mere fact that he has been challaned in some cases cannot make him desperate and dangerous specially when he is acquitted or released on bail in most of cases. One of the case in which he has been convicted for seven years is under section 307, P.P.C.; the maximum punishment prescribed under that section is 10 years as no injury was caused and not life imprisonment, which is requirement of the 4th proviso to section 497, subsection (1), Cr.P.C. Even otherwise detention of an undertrial prisoner for six years in jail is shocking. It appears that the prosecution is interested in prolonging the trial otherwise they could have procured the witnesses and completed the case within six years the period the applicant has remained in jail."
10. In the instant case, the applicant/accused is involved in four cases and he is not a previous convict. So far as this aspect of his matter is concerned, his case stands on a better footing. He has already remained in jail for about five years and two months. The prosecution has not been able to conclude the trial during this long period and it cannot be anticipated as to when the trial will be concluded. Accordingly, we admit the applicant/accused to bail who shall be released on furnishing one 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 Trial Court.