' Applicant Zahid Khan and Subhan are involved in F.I.R. No,310 of 1998 under section 392/397/34, P.P.C. Police Station Saeedabad and are facing trial in the Court of II-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi West in Sessions Case No,118 of 1999.
2. The allegations against the applicants are that complainant Noor Muhammad was robbed of his Yellow Cab bearing Registration No,PG-8426 by accused/applicants at gun-point after having boarded the same on hire near Madina Mosque and the said car was recovered from their possession.
3. The bail application moved before the learned trial Court on the ground of statutory delay was rejected vide order, dated 5-1-2000.
4. This bail application has been filed on the ground of statutory delay as the applicants were arrested on 13-11-1998 and have completed two years' term in the jail but the trial has not yet concluded.
5. I have heard Mr. Ajab Khan Khattak, Advocate for the applicants and Mr. Sharafat Ali Khan, Advocate appearing for the State .
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the authorities reported as Abdul Latif and another v. The State 1999 M LD 1300, Abdul Wahad Junejo v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 1808, Haji Javed Ahmad and another v. The State PLD 1997 Kar. 156 and some other authorities on the point that involvement of accused in similar nature of offences, was not sufficient to deprive them of the liberty.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the State has conceded to the grant of bail as the alleged offence was not punishable with imprisonment for life or death and the trial has not concluded though a period of two years has passed, therefore, the accused are entitled to the grant of bail in view of the provisions contained in section 497, Cr.P.C.
8. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and have perused the case-law submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant.
9. The report from the Superintendent Central Prison, Karachi and the report from the concerned police station was called and perused. According to the report from the Jail Authorities, the applicants Zahid Khan and Subhan were involved in two other cases apart from the present one and it was further stated that their conduct during the imprisonment was satisfactory. The same is the report from the concerned S.H.O.
10. Admittedly, the accused/applicant, were arrested on 13-11-1998 and have continuously remained in the jail for a period of two years. The trial has yet not concluded and the delay in the trial is not attributed to the accused/applicants. The bail application of the applicants was rejected by the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi West only on the ground that since the applicants were involved in a heinous crime and that their conduct was such that no concession could be extended to them.
11. According to the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Zahid Hussain Shah v. The State PLD 1995 SC 49, the right of an accused to be enlarged on bail under the IIIrd proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Is a statutory right which cannot be denied under the discretionary powers of the Court to grant bail. This rule was followed by this Court in the case of Haji Javed Ahmed and another v. The State reported in PLD 1997 Kar. 156 and 1997 PCr.LJ 1808.
12. Suffice it to say, that because the accused were involved in two other offences which were still being tried, therefore, they cannot be deprived of their liberty merely on the apprehension that they were dangerous or hardened criminals. In this respect, I am supported by the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case reported as Muhammad Rafiq v. The State 1997 SCM R 412.
In this case the bail was sought to be rejected on the ground that about ten (10) criminal cases were pending against the applicant, where he was accused of having committed robbery, but it was held by the Honourable Supreme Court, that "fact that the accused is involved in a number of cases of robbery, is not sufficient to deprive him of his liberty". The same rule was followed by this Court in the case of Abdul Latif and another v. The State reported in 1999 M LD 1300.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the applicants are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.