BILAL SHAFIQUE vs STATE and another
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed by Bilal Shafique seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 26 registered at Police Station CTD, Multan, under Sections 9 and 11-W of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for allegedly distributing hate material against a specific sect via his Facebook account. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and lack of connection with a proscribed organization. The court held that since the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and no incriminating material linking the petitioner to a proscribed organization was found during the completed investigation, the case warrants further inquiry under sub-section (2) of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court established the principle that involvement in a sensitive incident does not bar discretionary relief of bail without cogent incriminating material, and that grant of bail is the rule where offenses fall outside the prohibitory clause.
- Whether an accused charged under the Anti-Terrorism Act is entitled to post-arrest bail when the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Does involvement in a high-profile or sensitive incident by itself constitute a bar against the grant of discretionary relief of bail?
- When can a criminal case be considered one of further inquiry within the purview of sub-section (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Section 9, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 11-W, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition, Bilal Shafique, petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No, 26, dated 05.05.2017 registered at Police Station CTD, Multan in respect of offences under Sections 9 & 11-W of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
2. The allegation against the petitioner as per crime report is that when the raid was conducted, he was found showing/distributing hate material/provocative wording against the Shia Sect from his Facebook account.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed by us that this is bail after arrest and only tentative assessment is required at this stage.
According to the crime report lodged by Muhammad Sharif, SI/CTD the allegation against the petitioner is that he was found sharing hate material/provocative wording against Shia Sect from his Facebook account. During the investigation, no evidence has been collected that the petitioner had any link with any proscribed organization and no complaint is available on the record. Likewise, involvement of an accused in a sensitive, or high profile incident does not by itself constitute any bar in the way of discretionary relief unless sound reasons and cogent incriminating material 'connecting such an accused with the commission of offence are not available with the prosecution. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest, the investigation of this case qua the petitioner is complete, thus, his continuous incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose at this stage. Further, the petitioner is previous non-convict and never involved in such like cases.
The offence with which the petitioner is charged does not fall with the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. In such like cases grant of bail is a rule and its refusal is an exception. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34). Having regard to the above factual and legal position, we are satisfied that the case against the petitioner needs further inquiry within the purview of sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. In view of what has been said above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. It is, however, made clear that the observations made supra are tentative in nature and will not prejudice trial of the case.