MUHAMMAD MUKHTAR Versus STATE
MUHAMMAD NASEEM CHAUDHRI, J.--- On 31-10-1996 at 7-00 a.m. one Mst. Keejo sister of Muhammad Siddique petitioner-accused was found urinating in the fodder field owned by Abdul Aziz complainant and Muhammad Akbar injured P.W. She was restrained when an altercation took place. At 10-30 a.m. both Abdul Aziz complainant and Muhammad Akbar injured P.W.3 were cutting the fodder in their field where Muhammad Siddique arrived while armed with a pistol. He is alleged to have said that he would take the revenge as his sister Mst. Keejo had been insulted. Thereafter, he fired twice at Muhammad Akbar which hit his front chest at right and left. Muhammad Anwar and Hafeez P.Ws. saw the occurrence. Muhammad Siddique is said to have made good his escape. He was arrested on 17-11-1996. His bail plea was rejected on 26-11-1997 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I/Special Judge Suppression of Terrorists Activities, Mianwali. Muhammad Siddique petitioner has filed this petition before this Court to try his luck to be admitted to bail.
2. At this stage it is proper to express that during examination by the Fire arms Expert it was opined that the pistol taken into possession from the custody of Muhammad Siddique petitioner-accused is serviceable and semi-automatic.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State Counsel and gone through the record before us. The main point stressed by the learned counsel for Muhammad Siddique petitioner is that he was arrested on 17-11-1996 and the continuous period of his detention has exceeded one year, and thus, he has earned a valuable right of admission to bail within the purview of clause (a) to Proviso III of subsection (1) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure especially when there is no material with the prosecution to make out that the petitioner is a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal. On the contrary it was canvassed on behalf of the prosecution and the complainant that the petitioner is involved in a case under section 324, Pakistan Penal Code who used the semi-automatic pistol and that under section 5-A(8) of the Suppression of Terrorists Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 this Court has no jurisdiction to admit Muhammad Siddique petitioner to bail. At this stage we would like to record that the Trial Court did not exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner on the statutory ground by expressing the opinion that his jurisdiction was barred under section 5-A(8) of the aforesaid Act. We express the view that the case-law is not bereft of the judicial decisions to the effect that an accused being tried for a scheduled offence by the Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorists Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 is entitled to be admitted to bail on merits and even on statutory ground. It has been ruled in Asif Ali Zardari v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 595 that the High Court can admit a person accused of a scheduled offence and f4cing trial before a Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorists Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 to bail under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Keeping in view the admitted position that Muhammad Siddique petitioner was arrested on 17-11-1996 while today is 11-3-1998 and the continuous period of his detention has exceeded one year and that no other case of the instant nature has been registered or pending against him he is held entitled to enjoy the concession of bail than to remain in jail.
4. We, therefore, accept this application and admit Muhammad Siddique petitioner-accused to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Mianwali or due to his non-availability to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Mianwali with the direction to appear before the Trial Court on every date of hearing failing which the learned Trial Court may cancel his bail.
5. Copy Dasti.
H.B.T./M-633/L Bail granted.