NIAZ AHMAD Versus THE STATE
ORDER
1. The applicant Niaz Ahmed son of Ali Muhammad has been challaned before the Special Court, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Hyderabad for having committed offences under sections 212, 212-A, 121 and 122, P.P.C. read with section 13" of the Prevention of Anti-National Activities Act, 1974 registered at Police Station Mirpur Bathero vide F.I.R. Crime No.69/92. As the bail application moved by the applicant was rejected by the trial Court, he has, therefore, repeated the same before this Court. .
2. The allegations against the applicant as contained in the F.I.R. are that the incident took place in 1987 while the report was lodged on 22-8-1992 by A.S.-I. Ali Akber at Police Station, Bathero, which was registered on the orders of S.P., Thatta and it was based on a report submitted by J.I.T. The allegations were that the applicant alongwith his companion Ahmed Menton went to India where they obtained special training in the use of weapons, which they were to employ in Pakistan after their return to Pakistan. Accordingly the applicant was arrested and after usual investigation the police submitted challan before the Special Court (S.T.A.), Hyderabad, where the applicant is now facing trial.
3. We have heard Mr. Shafi Muhammadi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Syed Sarfraz Ahmad, A.A.-G. The latter has opposed this bail application.
4. The certified copy of the challan has been filed and it indicates that there are only three witnesses in this case. The first witness is the complainant A.S.-I. Ali Akber while the other two witnesses are Mashirs of arrest of the applicant. This means the entire prosecution case is based on the evidence of the Investigating Officer only. We are surprised at the manner in which the investigation has been conducted in this case. The report lodged by the Investigating Officer is not based on any information received by the Investigating Officer, but the same has been lodged on the instructions of S.P., Thatta who had received a report from J.I.T. The entire F.I.R. indicates as if all the facts mentioned therein occurred in front of the Investigating Officer. But this is not so as the F.I.R. has been lodged on the report of J.I.T. and not a single member of the law enforcing agencies has been cited as a witness. We have no hesitation in observing that prima facie there is no cogent material to connect the applicant with the commission of this offence.
5. In the light of our above discussion, we are of the view that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of a non-bailable offence. In the circumstances a case for grant of bail is made out and accordingly bail is granted to the applicant on his furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
6. H.B.T./N-557/K Bail granted.