Muhammad Ali Wazir (MNA) and another vs Federation Of Pakistan
The petitioners invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court challenging notifications issued under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which ordered their trials in specific criminal cases to be held within the premises of Central Jail Haripur. The core legal question was whether the continuation of trial proceedings inside the jail premises remained justified after the petitioners were released on bail and their circumstances had materially changed. The court held that since the petitioners were now on bail and neither the parties nor the witnesses belonged to Haripur, holding the trial inside the jail was no longer sensible or appropriate. The court set aside the impugned notifications and directed that the trial be conducted at Peshawar before the designated Anti-Terrorism Court, while granting liberty to the respondents to seek a change of venue if valid safety concerns subsequently arose.
- Can the government direct a trial under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 to be held within jail premises?
- Does the release of accused persons on bail justify changing the venue of a trial previously ordered to be held in jail?
- Whether a trial ordered to be held inside a prison can be relocated to an ordinary court when security grounds change?
- Section 15(2), Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
LAL JAN KHA TTAK, J.---Petitioners through the petition in hand have prayed to this court for issuance of a writ declaring the Notifications dated 17.06.2019 and 02.07.2019 as illegal and unlawful whereunder trial in the cases registered against them vide FIRs bearing No.14 dated 26.05.2019 and No.16 dated 07.06.2019 of Police Station CTD Bannu has been ordered to be held within the premises of Central Jail Haripur .
2. Arguments heard and record gone through.
3. No doubt, the Government under section 15(2) of the Anti-T errorism Act, 1997 (the Act) may direct that for the trial of a particular case the court shall sit at such place as it may specify but noticeable aspect of the case is that the impugned Notifications were issued at a time when both the petitioners were detained at Central Jail Haripur , however , now they have been released on bail, therefore, in the changed circumstances of the case, it would not make a sense to proceed with their trial within the jail premises.
4. Another reason for transfer of the petitioners' trial in the cases registered against them from Bannu to Haripur was for the purpose of providing protection and safety to the Presiding Officer, witnesses and prosecutors of the cases. Aforesaid reason did carry some weight in it but as by now both the petition ers are on bail and neither they nor complainant and injured of the cases nor the witnesses thereof hail from Haripur , therefore, it would be proper if the trial is ordered to be conducted by the court established under the Act at Peshawar instead of Bannu, to which learned counsel for the petitioners also agreed.
5. For what has been discussed above, this petition is accepted, the impugned Notifications are declared null and void and it is ordered that trial of the petitioners in both the cases be held at Peshawar before a court established under the Act, however , if for any reason as to safety of the witnesses, the Judge or for any other just cause it would not be possible to conduct the petitioners' trial at Peshawar , then in that eventuality , the respondents may approach the competent authority for shifting the venue of the trial to some other place instead of Peshawar .