UBAIDULLAH Versus State
This is a post-arrest bail application filed before the Balochistan High Court by the applicant Ubaidullah, seeking bail in FIR No. 29 of 2019 registered under sections 11-F(2)(5) and 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 at Police Station CTD Naseerabad. The core legal question revolves around whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail when the charged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that since the maximum punishment for the offence under section 11-F does not exceed five years, it falls outside the prohibitory clause, making the grant of bail a rule and its refusal an exception, as settled by the apex court. Consequently, the bail application was accepted and the applicant was admitted to bail subject to furnishing required surety.
- Whether an offence under section 11-F of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Does the grant of bail become a rule when an offence does not fall within the prohibitory limb of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Section 11-F, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 11-F(2), Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 11-F(5), Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 6, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J .---Through this application, the applicant seeks bail in FIR No. 29 of 2019 registered with Police Station CTD Naseerabad, under sections 11-F(2)(5), 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act. 1997 (the ATC Act, 1997).
Earlier the application filed for the same relief before the learned Special Judge Anti-Terrorism, Dera Allah Yar was dismissed vide order dated 31.12.2019. Hence this application.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.11.2019 complainant Abid Hussain IP/SHO lodged the referred FIR, alleging therein that one person namely Ubaidullah is working for proscribed organization and collecting donation for Falah Insaniyat Foundation, which is used for terrorist activities.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned APG and have also gone through the record. It is the case of prosecution against that applicant that he was collecting donation from the people for proscribed organization but none of the locality from whom the donation was collected was associated as a witness. The applicant is behind the bars since his arrest. The trial court rejected the bail on the ground that the applicant is involved in a heinous crime of non-bailable offences of capital punishment, therefore it would be appropriate to reproduce the section 11-F of the Act, 1997 as under:
11F Membership, support and meetings relating to a Proscribed Organization. (1) A person is guilty of an offence if he belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organization.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) shall be liable on conviction to a term not exceeding six months imprisonment and a fine.
(3) A person commits an offence if he: (a) solicits or invites support for a proscribed organization, and the support is not, or is not restricted to, the provision of money or other property; or
(b) arranges, manages or assists in managing, or addressing a meeting which he knows is:-
(i) to support a proscribed organization;
(ii) to further the activities of a proscribed organization; or
(iii) to be addressed by a person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organization.
(4) A person commits an offence if he addresses a meeting, or delivers a sermon to a religious gathering, by any means whether verbal, written, electronic, digital or otherwise, and the purpose of his address or sermon, is to encourage support for a proscribed organization or to further its activities.
(5) A person commits an offence if he solicits, collects or raises funds for a proscribe organization.
(6) A person guilty of an offence under subsections (3), (4) and (5) shall be liable on conviction to a term of imprisonment not less than one year and not more than five years and a fine.
4. The maximum punishment provided under the referred Section is not more than five years, as such the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble apex Court repeatedly held that grant of bail in offences not falling within the prohibition limb of section 497, Cr.P.C. shall be a rule and refusal an exception. In this regard reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Tanveer v. State (PLD 2017 Supreme Court 733).
In view of above, the application is accepted and the applicant namely Ubaidullah son of Abdul Fatah is admitted to bail in case FIR No. 29 of 2019. Police Station CTD Naseerabad under sections 11-F(2)(5), 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and PR of like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar of this court or the trial court.
Needless to observe that the observations made in this order are tentative in nature and same shall not affect the merits of the case at the trial.
ADN/14/Bal. Bail granted.