' The petitioner alongwith his co-accused stands charged under sections 392/411, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R.
No,140, dated 4-7-1999 registered at Police Station Taranda Muhammad Pannah, District Rahim Yar Khan.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had deprived Muhammad Amjad of his motorcycle Rs,2,000 in cash and his National Identity Card. His co-accused Sajjad alias Kala had deprived his companion of his watch and sum of Rs,1,000. The present accused/petitioner was caught red-handed whereas his co accused succeeded in making good his escape. It is further stated in the F.I.R. That Karim Bakhsh was armed with pistol whereas Sajjad was armed with klashnikov at the relevant time.
3. The petitioner applied for bail which relief has been declined to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order, dated 6-9-2000. Hence the instant petition.
4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought the relief of bail on statutory ground. His contention is that the petitioner was arrested on 4-7-1999 and till today he is in jail, as such he has been in jail for one year, six months and sixteen days. He further submits that till today even the charge has not been framed as co-accused of the petitioner namely Sajjad alias Kala is absconding and proceedings under section 87, Cr.P.C. Have been initiated against him (Sajjad alias Kala), that he has been declined the relief of bail on the ground that he stands involved in various cases. He further submitted that mere fact that various cases have been registered against the petitioner is no ground to decline the relief of bail on statutory ground and has placed reliance on Abdul Wahid Junejo v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 1808. He further submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted in three different cases which have been referred by the Judicial Magistrate while declining the relief of bail to the petitioner. He, thus, submits that the petitioner is entitled to the relief of bail on statutory ground.
6. Conversely bail application has been opposed by the learned counsel for the State. To supplement his contention, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the petitioner stands involved in as many as 35 cases of different nature pertaining to Police Station Taranda Muhammad Pannah and Liaquatpur. He thus, submits that in view of large number of cases registered against the petitioner he appears to be a hardened criminal and as such is not entitled to the relief of bail even on statutory ground.
7. The petitioner in the instant case is said to have been apprehended at the spot and consequently recovery has been effected from him. The challan of this case was submitted in the learned trial Court on 9-9-1999 and since then the case is pending in the learned trial Court. There is no doubt that the trial has not started as co-accused of the petitioner having been released on bail had absconded and is not attending the Court. The Judicial Magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge have refused the bail on the ground that the petitioner stands involved in various cases. There is no doubt that the prosecution has referred to a list of 35 cases registered against the present petitioner but there is nothing on the record if he has been convicted in any one of those cases. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced copies of orders passed in three different cases in which he stands acquitted.
8. The mere fact that a number of cases have been registered against the present petitioner is not sufficiedt to disentitle him for the relief of bail and that too on statutory ground. The petitioner has been languishing in jail for more than 1-1/2 years and even till today the charge has not been framed against him. The accused/petitioner cannot be allowed to remain in jail for an indefinite period merely on the ground that various cases have been registered against him. Accordingly the petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.