1. ' The Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,131 of 1999 is filed by Mst. Badrunnisa Jatoi against the respondents/accused (i) Abdul Basit, (ii) Muslim Shah, (iii) Agha Muhammad Jamil, (iv) Shabbir Ahmad Qaimkhani and (v) Shahid Hayat under section 497(5), Cr.P.C., for cancellation of bail granted to them on 8-2-1999 by the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi-West. Criminal Bail Applications Nos.222 and 582 of 1999 have been filed by the applicants/accused Rai Muhammad Tahir and Major (Retd.) Masood Sharif Khan through their counsel under section 497/498, Cr.P.C., for grant of bail in respect of the same incident F.I.R. No,443 of 1996 of Police Station Clifton, Karachi, as they were refused bail by a common order, dated 8-2-1999 by the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi-West. I intend to dispose of all the above three criminal matters by this single order as these arise out of the common F.I.R. No,443 of 1996 registered at Police Station Clifton, Karachi, and of common order, dated 8-2-1999, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi-West.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that F.I.R. No,443 of 1996 was registered at the instance of complainant Noor Muhammad at Police Station Clifton, Karachi, under section 148/149/302/120-A and B read with section 324 (amended), P.P.C., which was got registered under the directions of this Court passed on C.P. No,D-1720 of 1996 stating therein that on 20-9-1996 Mir Murtaza Bhutto alongwith Ashiq Hussain Jatoi and his companions named in the F.I.R. Were returning to 70 Clifton, at about 8- 35 p.m. In a convoy comprising four vehicles when reached at about 100 yards from the main gate of the residence of Mir Murtaza Bhutto, the latter was stopped on Shahra-e-Iran, 80/100 police personnel yvho were duly armed with automatic weapons had already taken position at the place of incident. The police officers namely Wajid Durrani, who was then S.S.P., South-Karachi, Respondent No,5 Shahid Hayat, who was then A.S.P., Saddar, A.S.P. Darakhshan (Rai Muhammad Tahir), Haq Nawaz Sial S.H.O., Police Station Clifton, Zeeshan Kazmi S.H.O., Khokhrapar, S.H.O., Garden (Shabbir Ahmad Qaimkhani) and Agha Muhammad Jamil S.H.O., Police Station Napier, gave signal to stop; as soon as convoy stopped Mir Murtaza Bhutto lowered the window of his Pajero Jeep, the said Police Officers shouted 'Fire', whereupon some of the companions of Mir Murtaza Bhutto ran towards the latter to provide him cover but in the meanwhile, the police started firing and target, shooting with the result eight persons were killed and several others injured. The applicant/accused Major (Retd.) Masood Sharif Khan in Criminal Bail Application No, 582 of 1999 has not been shown to be present at the place of incident at the relevant time but his name has been mentioned in the F.I.R., as one of those who conspired to eliminate Mir Murtaza Bhutto in league with others. It may be pointed out that prior to the above F.I.R., F.I.R. No,386 of 1996 was lodged by Police Inspector Haq Nawaz Sial at Police Station Clifton on 20-9-1996 at 10-00 p.m., and second F.I.R. No,399 of 1996 was also got registered at the same police station on 24-9-1996 at the instance of one Asghar Ali, a servant of Mir Murtaza Bhutto who was said to be in company of Mir Murtaza Bhutto in one of the vehicles and was arrested by the police on 20-94996 from the place of incident and was in police custody when the said F.I.R. Was registered on the abovementioned date.
3. ' The contention of Mr. Sarfaraz Khan Tanoli is that grant of bail to the respondents/accused mentioned in Criminal Application No,131 of 1999 is neither legal nor proper and same is liable to be set aside. He submitted that respondent No,5 Shahid Hayat's bail before arrest application was earlier rejected by this Court on 2-12-1996 and in that respect he referred to Shahid Hayat Khan and others v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 901 (Karachi). He also submitted that Bail Application No,1667 of 1997 filed by co-accused Wajid Ali Durrani was also rejected on merits. He also submitted that after arrest the respondent No,5 Shahid Hayat and applicant Major (Retd.) Masood Sharif Khan had moved this Court for grant of bail alongwith co-accused Wajid Ali Durrani but their bail applications were rejected through a common order, dated 16th October, 1998, reported in Shahid Hayat and two others v. The State PLD 1999 Kar.
162. He has also submitted that under the order of Government a judicial enquiry was ordered to be conducted in respect of the incident which was headed by Honourable Judge of Supreme Court, Nasir Aslam Zahid, J., who submitted his report after examining number of witnesses and is said to have observed in the report that the said incident was an act of terrorism. Mr. Sarfaraz Khan Tanoli further submitted that the Trial Court has granted bail to the respondents named in the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,131 of 1999 on the ground of statutory delay as provided under proviso
(iii) to section 497(i), Cr.P.C., but the said proviso is controlled by proviso (iv) to section 497(i), Cr.P.C., and in the instant case proviso (iv) would be attracted, consequently, the respondents/accused were not entitled to the grant of bail, therefore, the impugned order of granting bail cannot be sustained. In the said respect he has referred to the material on record.
4. According to him, admittedly, in the instant case Mir. Murtaza Bhutto and his companions were fired upon by the police party resulting in death of eight persons including Mir Murtaza Bhutto and Ashiq Hussain Jatoi and inflicting injuries to many others from the side of complainant in F.I.R.
5. No,443 of 1996 whereas as per F.I.R. No,386 of 1996 on the police side only two police officers are said to have suffered minor injuries and out of injury caused to Haq Nawaz Sial complainant in the said F.I.R. (now deceased) was declared by Medical Board to be self-inflicted whereas injury sustained by respondent No,5 Shahid Hayat was on the rear of his thigh which ex-facie was not likely to have been caused by the complainant party who were in front of the said accused/respondent, considering also all circumstances, the number of persons killed and injured, keeping in view that in F.I.R. No,386 of 1996 lodged by Inspector Haq Nawaz Sial who stated that police resorted to firing in self-defence after the persons accompanying with Mir Murtaza Bhutto had opened indiscriminate firing on the police party with intention to kill and for that reason the respondents alongwith others were present at the scene of incident. Learned counsel for the applicant/complainant further submitted that the respondents alongwith others reached the place of incident as stated in the F.I.R., under the directions of co-accused S.S.P., South, Wajid Ali Durrani and there was well-thought-out plan by the respondents and other co-accused/ applicants to eliminate Mir Murtaza Bhutto, the Chairman of People's Party (S.B. Group; on the night of incident, in order to achieve the said object, the lights of the area were switched off and a large number of police personnel duly armed had already taken the positions which could not be considered as normal measures to effect the arrest of few persons as alleged in the F.I.R. No,386 of 1996. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents/accused brutally murdered and killed as many as eight persons and injured many of the team of Mir Murtaza Bhutto and further after killing and injuring them left them there for longer time to bleed so that chances of their survival are diminished by timely medical aid, consequently, all these circumstances would show that the respondents/accused were involved in the act of terrorism and thereby would be disentitled to any concession of bail by virtue of proviso (iii) to section 497(i), Cr.P.C. He further submitted that all those present at the scene of offence or near about respondents/accused would be liable and responsible for the commission of offence because they were prosecuting the commission of said offence with common object. He has placed reliance upon (i) Jalal v. Allahyar and another 1993 SCM R 525 wherein their Lordships have observed that "for the purpose of finding with regard as to whether accused were hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal or involved in terrorism reference can be given from the facts of bail application or by reference to other extraneous matters which are brought to the notice of the Court showing that the case would fall within the provisions contained in section 497(i) proviso (iv) of Cr.P.C.; (ii) Naseebullah v. The State 1991 SCM R 2450 and (iii) Akhtar Abbas v. The State PLD 1982 SC 424 in support of his contentions.
6. ' Mr. Ali Bin Adam Jafri, Advocate, submitted that respondent No,1 was arrested in F.I.R. No,443 of 1996 on 7-11-1996 and till today case has not been concluded though period of two years has expired, therefore, on the point of statutory delay the respondent No,1 was rightly granted bail by the learned Trial Court which cannot be interfered with by this Court. He further submitted that facts given under grounds Nos.4, 6 and 7 of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,131 of 1999 are not correct so also facts stated in para.3 of the accompanying affidavit.
7. ' Mr. Amanullah Khan, learned counsel for respondent No,2 Muslim Shah, has submitted that the said respondent/accused was arrested on 24-11-1996 whereas the incident took place on 20-9- 1996 and the case has not so far been concluded, therefore, the Trial Court has rightly granted bail to the said respondent/accused on the ground of statutory delay, considering the facts that no identification test was held and no role was assigned to the said respondent/ accused and further that once bail is granted same cannot be cancelled unless there are very strong grounds under the law for the cancellation of same.
8. ' Mr. Khawaja Naveed Ahmad, learned counsel for respondents Nos.3 and 4 Agha Muhammad Jamil and Shabbir Ahmad Qaimkhani, has submitted that the bail was rightly granted on the ground of statutory delay, therefore, no interference is called for, considering that the case of the said respondents did not fall within the purview of proviso (iv) to section 497(i), Cr. P . C .
9. ' Mr. Ch. Iftikhar Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent No,5 Shahid Hayat in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,131 of 1999 and applicant Rai Muhammad Tahir in Criminal Bail Application No,222 of 1999, has submitted that respondent No,5 Shahid Hayat was rightly granted bail on the ground of statutory delay and the case would not fall under proviso (iv) to section 497(i), Cr.P.C., and previous applications filed were rejected not on the ground of statutory delay but were rejected on merits. He further submitted that the case would not fall within the meaning of "involved in the terrorism" and had it been so, the case would have been challaned under Anti- Terrorism Act, consequently, bail has been rightly granted to respondent No,5 Shahid Hayat. So far the applicant/accused Rai Muhammad Tahir, he submitted that he was arrested on 16-12-1996 and statutory period of two years has expired and .There has been no delay on the part of said applicant/accused, therefore, the Trial Court should have granted bail to the applicant/accused Rai Muhammad Tahir considering that there has been no possibility of case being completed in near future as till this day only sixteen P.Ws. Have been examined out of 223 witnesses. He further submitted that there is no material as to the terrorism considering that the respondents/applicants/accused were performing their duties and the merits of the case are not to be considered under proviso (iii) to section 497, Cr.P.C., considering that there has been no allegation that he fired at Mir Murtaza Bhutto in F.I.R. No,443 of 1996. He has placed reliance upon (i)
10. Muhammad Riaz v. The State PLD 1995 Kar. 349 wherein the learned Judge in Chambers observed that "applicant/accused being a police-man is presumed that he is not a hardened criminal or previous convict as records are always checked for getting employment in Police Department" and
(ii) Shaukat Ali v. Ghulam Abbas and others 1998 SCM R 228 wherein their Lordships of Supreme Court have observed that "delay, if any, caused on account of non-appearance of co-accused could not be attributed by any stretch of reasoning to the accused as the same could not be said to have been occasioned by any act or omission of accused or any person acting on their behalf", in support of his contentions.
11. ' Mr. Azizullah K. Shaikh, learned counsel for applicant Major (Retd.) Masood Sharif Khan in Criminal Bail Application No,582 of 1999, has submitted that the applicant/accused has remained in custody for continuous period of over two years and the trial has not concluded due to no fault of the applicant/accused, therefore, he would be entitled to the grant of bail. He further submitted that the impugned order of learned Trial Court is not legal considering that nothing has been brought on record with regard to alleged conspiracy having been hatched by him for the elimination of Mir Murtaza Bhutto and further that only witness Rahim Bux Jamali who was on the point of conspiracy was given up by the prosecution considering also the fact that the applicant was not present at the time of incident and the applicant's case would not fall within the purview of proviso (iv) to section 497(i), Cr.P.C., as neither he could be termed to be hardened, desperate and dangerous criminal nor to be involved in the terrorism. He further submitted that P.W.9 Subook Majeed the only witness has said about the Director of I.B., namely, Tariq who has given him threats to disassociate with Mir Murtaza Bhutto and has not said about the applicant/ accused Major (Retd.) Masood Sharif Khan but only stated that at that time the applicant/accused Masood Sharif Khan was Director-General of Intelligence Bureau. He has placed reliance upon (i) Nazir Hussain v.
12. Ziaul Haq and others 1983 SCM R 72 wherein their Lordships of Supreme Court have held that "grant of bail on expiry of two years specified period is a right of an accused and the word "shall" in third proviso would not mean "may" and further future expected delay in the completion of two years period would be a violative of language used in the statute" and (ii) Zahid Hussain Shah v. The State PLD 1995 SC 49 wherein their Lordships of Supreme Court have held that "Proviso (iii) to section 497(i), Cr.P.C., is a right of an accused" in support of his contentions. He in the end submitted that the co-accused Shoaib Saddal and Asif Ali Zardari who were also not present at the time of incident at the scene of offence were granted bail and the case of applicant/accused Major (Retd.) Masood Sharif Khan is of identical nature, therefore, he is entitled to bail as well on the ground of statutory delay. On the point of conspiracy, he submitted that list of twenty witnesses was given out of which fourteen witnesses have been examined, six P.Ws. Have been given up in which P.W. Rahim Bux Jamali was also given up, and no evidence on conspiracy implicating the applicant/ accused has been brought on record. He also submitted that the applicant/ accused Masood Sharif Khan went to Supreme Court for bail on merits but it was dismissed but was permitted to move the Trial Court.
13. ' Mr. I.A. Hashmi, learned counsel for the applicant in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,131 of 1999, reiterated the submissions made by Mr. Sarfaraz Khan Tanoli, Advocate and placed reliance upon (i) Moundar and others v. The State PLD 1990 SC 934 wherein their Lordships of Supreme Court have held that "for the purpose of opinion with regard to the accused as to whether he is hardened, desperate and dangerous criminal, the material available in the case under trial as well as other material which may be produced by prosecution could be used by the Court to arrive at a tentative conclusion" and (ii) Muhammad Hanif v. The State PLD 1986 Kar. 437 wherein the learned Judge in Chambers also held that "opinion with regard to fourth proviso could be formed on the basis of material collected in that very case by prosecution to connect the accused with the crime alleged against him and in addition to that any other material could be produced by the prosecution to help the Court in formation of said/such opinion".
14. ' Mr. Habib Ahmad, Assistant Advocate-General Sindh, has adopted the arguments of Mr. Sarfaraz Khan Tanoli and that of Mr. I.A. Hashmi, Advocates, and has placed reliance upon (i) Umar Draz and another v. The State 1997 SCM R 885 wherein their Lordships of Supreme Court have observed that "for the purpose of fourth proviso to section 497(i) of Cr.P.C., the Court is authorized to take into consideration the evidence collected and other material produced by the prosecution in order to determine whether the accused is a criminal of the categories prescribed" and (ii) Sher Ali alias Sher v. The State 1998 SCM R 190 wherein their Lordships of Supreme Court have observed that "in order to bring an accused person within the compass of a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal it is not necessary to prove that he had been previously convicted, for the reason that previously convict persons are separately dealt with in the fourth proviso to section 497(i), Cr.P.C"
15. ' Mr. Muhammad Nadeem Qureshi, learned counsel for Mst. Khalida Parveen widow of deceased Sajjad Haider Jhakro, has also adopted the arguments of Messrs Sarfaraz Khan Tanoli and I.A.
16. Hashmi, Advocates, so also the arguments of Mr. Habib Ahmad, A.A.-G. Though Mr. S. Jalil Ahmad Hashmi, A.A.-G. For the State supported the order of Trial Court granting bail to the respondents.
17. ' On perusal of entire material and the evidence so far recorded, it could be said that the respondents/applicants/accused have remained in jail for more than two years and the trial of the case has not concluded so far, considering that only sixteen P.Ws. Have been examined out of 223 P.Ws. Though Mr. Azizullah K. Shaikh, learned counsel for the appellant Masood Sharif, has stated that the Special Prosecutor had given list of 20 P.Ws. To be examined and further submitted that most of witnesses out of 223 are not material and list of witnesses is taken from the witnesses examined before the Tribunal. Under proviso (iii) to section 497(i), Cr.P.C., the respondents/ applicants/accused would be entitled to the grant of bail provided their case would not fall within the purview of proviso (iv) to section 497(1), Cr.P.C., proviso (iv) to section 497, Cr.P.C., reads:-- "Provided further that provisions of the third proviso to this subsection shall not apply to a previously convicted offender for an offence punishable to death or imprisonment for life or to a person who in the 'opinion of Court is a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal or involved in terrorism."
18. ' On going through the material on record, prima facie one cannot say that the respondents/applicants/accused are hardened, desperate or dangerous criminals or previously convicted offender. The material which has come on record is that on the unfortunate date and time in accordance with well-thought-out plan, lights of the area were switched off and a 80-100 of police personnel duly armed with automatic weapons had already taken positions and when the convoy carrying Mir Murtaza Bhutto and his companions reached the place and then the respondents/applicants/accused/Police Officers shouted 'Fire' whereupon police started firing and target-shooting whereby eight persons were killed and many others sustained injuries and the senior police officers took the steps to cover up the crime by attempting; to tamper with the records and misdirect the trial as soon after the incident the daily diary of Clifton Police Station was ordered to be closed and one Asghar Ali who was in the police custody was asked to lodge report F.I.R. No,339 of 1996 who was earlier taken to Chief Minister House under police custody and further Police Inspector/S.H.O. Police Station Clifton, Haq Nawaz Sial, an important witness to the incident and conspiracy was murdered few days after the occurrence. Switching off the street lights and deployment of a large number of police personnel and presence of so many senior Police Officers can hardly be considered as a normal measure for effecting the arrest of few persons whose names are also not mentioned as alleged in the F.I.R. No,386 of 1996 wherein S.H.O. Clifton, Haq Nawaz Sial, lodged report stating therein that "under the supervision and leadership of Mr. Muhammad Tahir, A.S.P., Darakshan, the officiating S.D.P.O., Clifton and Mr. Shahid Hayat Khan, A.S.P.
19. Saddar, on the information of S.H.O., Police Station Garden, S.-I. Shabbir Ahmad Qiamkhani, S.H.O., Police Station Napier Inspector Agha Muhammad Jamil disclosed that suspects wanted in case F.I.R. No,270 of 1996 under section 147/148/149/353/452/225-B, P.P.C., of Police Station Napier the armed guards of Mir Murtaza Bhutto were expected in different vehicles to reach at 70 Clifton. I alongwith officers and police party was present at Shahrah-e-Iran opposite Clifton Garden with due permission of above said superior officers for stopping and joining them in investigation. At 2100 hours the suspects in four vehicles reached the above said place. I, S.H.O., in the company of police party gave signal to stop. The accused taking their arrest certain pointed their arms from inside their vehicles viz., double cabin Pajero and car. Mir Murtaza Bhutto who was sitting on the front seat of Blue Pajero No,2 loudly ordered his armed guards to kill policemen "the dogs" and on which all the armed persons in all the vehicles started firing on the police. I and A.S.P., Saddar, received bullet injuries. Police vehicles were damaged. In exercise of the right of self-defence and keeping in view the arrest of accused, the police party also returned the fire with the result the accused in and outside the vehicles were injured".
20. ' Prima facie there is material on record that minor injuries were sustained by one Haq Nawaz Sial S.H.O., of Police Station Clifton, which was also declared to be self-inflicted by the Medical Board and the minor injury was suffered by A.S.P. Saddar Shahid Hayat inflicted on the rear side of his thigh which ex-facie could not have been sustained as he was facing towards the convoy. Ex-facie on one hand there are said to be four Vehicles and on the other hand there are said to be 80 to 100 police personnel alongwith the police officers armed with deadly weapons and in the alleged encounter the complainant party's eight persons were killed and many injured and on the police party two officers have sustained Minor injuries. The question still remained to be determined whether there was any necessity of deployment of 80 to 100 armed police personnel long before the arrival of convoy consisting of four vehicles of Mir Murtaza Bhutto consisting of person not named in the F.I.R., and getting the lights switched off of the area only for the sake of arrest of few persons when the convoy was about 100 paces away from 70 Clifton. Ex-facie there is no reply from the respondents/applicants/side. The said suspected persons who were allegedly wanted in F.I.R.
21. No,270 of 1996 of Police Station Napier, were not involved in heinous offences, therefore, if police/respondents/ applicants/accused wanted to arrest and if they were in the convoy could have been arrested after the said convoy carrying the alleged suspects would have entered into 70 Clifton and thereby could have averted the precious loss of eight human lives. All these acts as said above done or planned prior and after the arrival of convoy of Mir Murtaza Bhutto and his companions made and stated as well as in F.I.R. No,386 of 1996 filed/lodged by S.H.O., Clifton, Haq Nawaz Sial stating therein that they in their self-defence fired at the convoy which resulted into eight casualties and numerous injured would amount nothing but use of violence against the complainant party in utter disregard of law, therefore, the respondents/applicants/accused ex- facie could be said to be involved in the terrorism. Ex-facie taking law into own hands and acting on the orders of superiors would not exonerate the persons implementing the illegal, unlawful orders of the superiors. Ex-facie the said acts of terrorism allegedly committed by the respondents/applicants/accused cannot be justified only on the flimsy ground of self-defence as they were police personnel officers who are said to be custodian of law. At least the respondents/applicants/accused who were admittedly present at the scene of offence at the relevant time could ex-facie be said on tentative assessment of the material that they were involved in the terrorism by indiscriminate firing at the convoy killing eight persons and injuring many others after switching off the lights and deploying a large number of police personnel. It may be noted that when an act of car snatching in the city could fall within the mischief of proviso (iv) to section 497(i), Cr.P.C., then the facts and circumstances of instant. Case could also fall within the ambit of proviso (iv) to section 497(i), Cr.P.C. Reference may be made to (i) Rizwan Hussain v. The State 1999 SCM R 131 and (ii) Muhammad Shafique v. The State 1998 PCr. LJ 1229. The learned Judge in the Chambers in the latter case referred to term "Terrorism" as defined in the following:--- "(a) Black's Law Dictionary, 1968, Revised Fourth Edition at page 1643:-- ' Terror. Alarm; fright; dread, the state of mind induced by the apprehension of hurt from some hostile or threatening event or manifestation; fear caused by the appearance of danger. In an indictment for riot, it must be charged that the acts done were 'to the terror of the people'. See Arto v. State, 19 Tex. App.
22. 136.'
(b) Chambers' 20th Century Dictionary, 1983, New Edition, at page 1335:--- 'Terror, n. Extreme fear, a time of, or government by, terrorism; an object of dread; one who makes himself a nuisance...'
(c) Webster's Collegiate Thesaurus, 1988, at page 579:--- "terror, n. Syn Fear 1. Alarm, consternation, dismay, dread, fright, horror, panic, trepidation, trepidity rel. Are fearfulness.
(d) Legal Thesaurus by W.C. Burton at page 999:--- 'Terror-fear, panic, phobia, trepidation' ' Terrorism anarchy, lynch law' ' Terrorist-assailant, criminal'
23. 'Terrorize-bait (harass), coerce, endanger, frighten, harass, intimidate, threaten.'
(e) Eugene v. Walter has defined terrorism as a process of terror involving elements: the act or threat of violence, the emotional reaction and the social effects, (Walter, E.V., Terror and Resistance), New York, Oxford University Press, 1977, p.14.
(f) R.K. Sinha has defined terrorism as the use of violence when its most important result is not only the physical and mental damage to the direct victims but also the psychological effect produced on someone else. (R.K. Sinha; Crimes Affecting State Security), Deep & Deep Publications, New Delhi."
24. ' In the circumstances, the case of respondents/accused in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,131 of 1999 would fall under proviso (iv) to section 497(i), Cr.P.C., being "involved in the terrorism", consequently, they would not be entitled to the benefit of proviso (iii) to section 497(i), Cr.P.C., hence, their bail granted by the learned Trial Court is hereby cancelled and they are directed to surrender today before this Court so that they could be taken into custody and be remanded to jail.
25. The applicant/accused in Criminal Bail Application No,222 of 1999, his application for bail is also rejected considering that his case would also fall within the mischief of proviso (iv) to section 497(i), Cr.P.C., being "involved in the terrorism". So far applicant/accused Major (Retd.) Masood Sharif Khan in Criminal Bail Application No,582 of 1999, he being admittedly away from the scene of offence and, therefore, he could not be said to be "involved in the terrorism" consequently he is granted bail on the ground of statutory delay in the sum of Rs,5,00,000 (Rupees five lac) with P.R.
26. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court and he would surrender his passport with the learned Trial Court if he is in possession of the same, otherwise, the authorities would see that the name of said applicant/accused is entered in E.C.L., so that he could not leave the country. However, the Trial Court will be competent to cancel his bail and forfeit the bond in case the applicant/accused commits misconduct or misuses the concession of bail.
27. ' Karachi: ' Dated: 30-8-1999.
28. ' The Reader of this Court after the announcement of the above order informed the Court that the respondents in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,131 of 1999 did not surrender and fled away though they being a disciplined force knowing law and orders of the Court should have surrendered before this Court, therefore, the learned Trial Court would take required proceedings against the respondents under the law.