' On 12-4-1997, an F.I.R. Bearing No,60 of 1997 was registered by Police Station Frear, Karachi South.
By one Col. (Retired) Habibur Rehman that he is working in Messrs Ramzan & Sons as Manager Administration, that on 9-4-1997 one car belonging to the said company bearing registration No,AAD-752, make suzuki, model 1996 which was being driven by the wife of Managing Director, was snatched by two persons from Dehli Colony. Bail application filed by the present applicant was dismissed by learned IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South against which the instant bail application has been filed but on the ground of statutory delay.
2. Present applicant was initially arrested on 15th May, 1997 in another F.I.R. No,110 of 1997 of Police Station Saddar arising out of offence under section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. And was shown arrested in the instant case on 19th May, 1997, Mr. Khawaja Manzoor has filed certified copies of diary sheets of the trial Court commencing from 2nd June, 1997 when the challan was submitted in the trial Court till 3-12-1998. This covers a period of nearly 18 months.
3. I have heard Mr. Khawaja Manzoor, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Muhammad Ismail Memon. Advocate for the State. According to the learned Counsel for the State the offence of car snatching falls within the definition of "terrorism" and. Therefore. The present applicant is not entitled to the benefit of 3rd proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. He has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Muhammad Shafique v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ 1299. On the other hand, Mr. Khawaja Manzoor has placed reliance on Moundar and others v. The State PLD 1990 SC 934, Umar Draz and another v. The State 1997 SCM R 885, Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34. I have considered the arguments of both the learned Counsel and have gone through the case diaries of the learned trial Court.
4. It is settled law that the entitlement of the provisions of third proviso is always subject to the conditions as mentioned in the fourth proviso. Indeed, an accused person is entitled to bail as a matter of right if the trial is not concluded within the period as shown in third proviso but such entitlement is subject to three qualifications:-
(i) He should not be a previously convicted offender for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life;
(ii) He should not, in the opinion of the Court, be hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal; and
(iii) He should not be involved in terrorism.
In the case of Muhammad Shafique (supra), it was held by my learned brother Dr. Ghous Muhammad, J. That the crime pertaining to car snatching is an act of terrorism affecting the society at large. Reliance was placed on the case of Imtiaz Ahmad v. The State PLD 1997 SC 545.
Learned Counsel for the applicant was not able to persuade me to take a contrary view.
5. As a result of the above discussion, this bail application is dismissed with direction to the learned trial Court to expeditiously proceed with the case and to frame charge at an early date and to at least record the evidence of two witnesses within a period of two months whereafter the accused would be at liberty to repeat his bail application on merits as well.