Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 497

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-- ---- S. 497(l), fourth proviso --- Antecedents of accused, ascertainment of-- Whether an accused is a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal can be spelt out from his previous record or by the manner in which the offence was committed by him. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- S. 497(l), third proviso --- Penal Code (XLV of .1860), S.353/324 --- Bail on statutory ground --- Accused had remained in jail for more than one year for the offences not punishable with death --- Police record did not show that the accused was a previous convict --- F.I.R. did not indicate any act having been committed by the accused to label him as a hardened, dangerous or desperate criminal-- Case against accused was of ineffective firing --- Accused also was not involved in any act of terrorism --- Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances. Zahid Hussain Shah v. The State PLD 1995 SC 49 and Nazeer Hussain v. Ziaul Haq and others 1983 SCMR 72 ref. Mukhtar Ahmed Samor for Applicant. Ms. Nasreen for A.-G. for the State. ORDER The applicant is facing trial in the Court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Central Karachi in Crime No.473 of 1994 of P.S. Khawaja Ajmer Nagri for an offence punishable under sections 353 and 324, P.P.C. as amended. Allegation against the applicant is that on 2-12-1994 at about 11 a.m. while S.H.O. Haji Muhammad Anwer alongwith his staff was on patrol duty present applicant alongwith Tariq Mehmood and Aslam fired at them with the intention to kill. Police party also fired in self-defence and apprehended present applicant in an injured   condition alongwith Tariq Mehmood, while co-accused Muhammad Aslam managed to escape away. One 30 bore TT pistol loaded with magazine having two live cartridges, was secured from the possession of applicant. A bail application previous to this was also filed before this Court which was dismissed on merits by order dated 24-4-1995. Thereafter, the applicant moved fresh bail application before the trial Court on the point of statutory delay but the same was rejected vide order dated 8-1-1996. Hence this application. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as for the…