Mulana MAQBOOL MIR vs The STATE
This bail petition concerns the petitioner, who was charged under sections 11-W, 11-F, and 9 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, in connection with an FIR alleging the creation of sectarian disharmony through a press release. The petitioner sought post-arrest bail, arguing that the charged offences were either bailable or fell outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution opposed the bail, contending that the offences were of a heinous nature and that the trial had already commenced. The Court observed that the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that in cases where offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is an exception. Finding no exceptional circumstances to warrant denial, the Court allowed the petition and directed the petitioner's release on bail, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds and sureties.
- Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception for offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Do offences under sections 11-W and 9 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be refused solely on the ground that the trial of the case has commenced?
- Section 11-W, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 11-F, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 9, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 8, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 11-A, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.-- Petitioner, who is involved for the offences of sections 11-W, 11-F, 9 and 8-A of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, hereunder referred as ATA, booked through FIR No,30/2015, of Police Station City Gilgit, seeks his release on bail through this petition. Previously, petitioner moved similar petition before the trial court, who; through his order dated 6-5-2015, on Cr. M. No,19/2015, refused the bail facility to the petitioner.
2. We have noted that the counsel for petitioner has wrongly written section 8-A of ATA as an offence in his petition before the learned trial court as well as in the petition in hand. But we have gone through the Act of ATA which does not contain any section with the name of 8-A, as any offence. Section 8 is a section which defines a number of offences and then section 9 provides punishment for the offences described in section 8. So, here under, offences mean the offences of sections 9, 11-A and 11-F of ATA.
3. The police of Police Station City Gilgit chalked FIR No,30/2015 in the light of a press release, allegedly issued by the petitioner. In the opinion of police; the wording of the press release is an attempt to create disharmony in the different sects of Muslims in the town of Gilgit.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that the prosecution has leveled charges of offences of sections 11-W, 11-F and 9 against petitioner. Out of said offences, offence of section 11-F is bailable as the same carries maximum punishment of 6 months. Offences of sections 11-W and 9 does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, petitioner is entitled to the bail facility.
5. On the other hand, the learned DAG argued that although the offences of sections 11-W and 11-F do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. But the said offences are of heinous nature. Moreover, trial of the case has commenced, therefore, also petitioner is not entitled to the bail facility.
6. We have heard arguments of the parties and have gone through the file. The fact that the offences of section 11-F is bailable and offences of sections 11-W and 9 of ATA do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Is not denied. Superior courts of our country have repeatedly ruled that grant of bail in case of offences that does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Is a rule while refusal thereof is an exception. In our opinion, the circumstances of the case in hand cannot be given treatment of an exception.
7. We, therefore, allow this petition and direct release of petitioner on bail, if not required in any other case, but subject to his furnishing personal bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 10,00,000/-(Ten Lac) with two sound local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court. File be consigned to record.