1. ' The facts leading to the present application for bail are that applicant/accused Asim son of Shuja Bhopali is facing trial in Sessions Case No,216 of 1997 before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malir, Karachi, which has arisen out of F.I.R. No,107 of 1997 of Police Station Qaidabad, Karachi, under section 17(3) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood), Ordinance, 1979.
2. ' The brief facts of the prosecution case, as narrated in the F.I.R., are that the complainant Faizullah son of Ahmed Khan is working as Booking Manager in the office of Green Line Coach Service, situated at Quaidabad, Karachi. On 13-4-1997 at about 6-30 p.m. The complainant was present in his office when two persons entered in his office. One of them was Asim son of Shuja Bhopali who was armed with TT pistol. He aimed the said pistol at the complainant and directed him that whatever amount is available with him should be delivered to accused. Then accused Asim took out Rs,I1,972, one damaged currency note of Rs,I00 denomination and a national identity card from the front pocket of the shirt of complainant. Thereafter, accused Asim and his companion took out Rs,10,000 from the drawer of the table. The complainant resisted and caught hold the hand of accused Asim, in which he was carrying TT pistol where upon Asim made two fires but complainant did not receive any injury. The companion of Asim tried to intervene but in the meanwhile P.W.
3. Imam Din raised cries of "thief" "thief". On the cries P.Ws. Nisar Ahmed and other persons came. On this the companion of accused Asim ran way from the spot with Rs,10,000. In the meantime police also reached at the scene of offence and they apprehended accused Asim and recovered TT pistol and robbed cash amount from him.
4. ' After usual investigation accused was sent up to stand trial. The applicant/accused applied for bail before the Trial Court but his bail plea was declined by impugned order, dated 24-8-1998.
5. ' I have heard learned counsel for the applicant/accused and learned counsel for the State, who has conceded to the grant of bail.
6. ' At the very outset learned counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that he presses the bail plea only on the ground of statutory delay and placed reliance on the case of Rahim alias Rahmak and another v. The State, reported in (1998 PCr.LJ 821) and also on an unreported decision of this Court in the case of Bismillah Khan and another v. The State (Criminal Bail Application No,1197 of 1998).
7. ' The perusal of record shows that applicant/accused, duly armed with deadly. Weapon along with his campanion barged' into the office of the complainant and committed robbery by putting the complainant and other inmates of the office in fear of death. It was the sheer luck of the complainant and other private persons that the shots fired by accused Asim did not hit the complainant and the police party reached at the spot and apprehended the applicant/accused and recovered the snatched property and fire arm from his possession.
8. ' The ground of statutory delay urged on behalf of accused is not helpful to applicant/accused looking towards the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, Proviso (3) to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Is controlled by Proviso (4) to section 497, Cr.P.C. While considering the bail plea on the ground of statutory delay Court has to take into consideration the evidence collected by the prosecution and if case falls within the purview of Proviso (4) to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Court can refuse bail.
9. Now a days in' the City of Karachi the incidents of robberies, dacoities and car snatching have become order of the day and Courts cannot be oblivious of this situation. In this context I am fortified by the unreported decision of Honourable Supreme Court in case of Rizwan Hussain v. The State (Criminal Bail Application No,41-K of 1998).
10. The act of robbery/dacoity amounts to terrorism. In this respect I am fortified by an unreported D.B.
11. Decision of this Court in the case of Dhani Baldish and others v. The State 1999 M LD 2028, wherein I was one of the Members. The applicant/accused in the present case was apprehended on the spot while committing robbery and the robbed amount and property was secured from his possession. His act, therefore, amounts to terrorism and he is not entitled to bail.
12. ' The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused are of no help to him as the facts and circumstances of the cited cases are altogether different and distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case.
13. For the reasons set-forth herein above I do not agree with the learned counsel for the applicant/accused as well as the advocate for A.G. Sindh and I see no merit in the bail application, which is accordingly dismissed.
14. ' The observations made herein above are of tentative in nature and the Trial Court will not be influenced thereby in any way at the time of final adjudication of the case and it will be free to arrive at its own independent findings After evaluating the evidence in the case at the stage of trial.