AKHTAR Versus State
MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.--- Petitioners have sought bail facility through the petition in hand. Previously, through order dated 24.01.2017, learned Vacations Sessions Judge/Judge Anti-Terrorism Gilgit rejected similar petition of the petitioners.
2. Petitioners, who are involved for the offences of sections 324, 149 and 148, P.P.C. and sections 6/7 of Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, hereunder referred as ATA 1997, indicted through FIR No.88/2016, of Police Station City Chilas, have sought bail facility through this petition. Brief background of prosecution story of occurrence disclosed in the FIR is that complainants, who are members of a tribe in Chilas Town, staged a strike, whereby, demanded their demands claiming that they are the affectees of Diamer Basha Dam. The strike was planned to held a sit in, in front of the office of WAPDA at Harban Das Chilas. At the time of occurrence, the men of the tribe of petitioners/accused appeared before the sit in and opened indiscriminate fires besides stoning the men in sit in. The FIR lodger has given 59 names of the assailants .
3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Deputy Advocate General. From plain perusal of contents of FIR, it is evident that petitioners have named 59 persons as assailants in the FIR but learned Deputy Advocate General had no answer when questioned that so far how many among the so named assailants were arrested? Deputy Advocate General had no reply of the question that why all the so named assailants were so far not arrested. It is very important to note that the complainant has not given any role to the petitioners different from that of the all 59 assailants . So, the role of all said assailants is similar. From plain perusal of contents of FIR, it is evident that police concerned have inserted sections 324, 149 and 148, P.P.C. in the FIR. But FIR is silent that the sit in of the petitioners admitted in the FIR was legal or not? In case the same was legal, then sections 148 and 149, P.P.C. so not attract to the petitioners and otherwise the said provisions attract to the sit in of the complainant party also. So we are yet to determine this question, therefore, the occurrence contains a question of further inquiry. From plain perusal of FIR, we find that the petitioners are alleged to have committed the offence of section 324, P.P.C., while section 324, P.P.C. attracts only when the alleged offence is an attempted murder. It is also evident from FIR that police has inserted sections 6/7 of ATA 1997. From plain perusal of FIR, it is clear that there is no allegation of attraction of the provisions of sections 6/7 of ATA 1997. So the question of attraction and application of said provision of law is a question of further inquiry. In the case in hand, it is evident from plain perusal of FIR that the complainant has alleged the said offence against at least 59 persons. So, still it is not clear that who among the alleged assailants had any intention of murder of any of the complainants or not. We are yet to determine that the occurrence is a sudden quarrel or something preplanned. Yet another very important aspect of the case is that the alleged firing caused any injury to any of the complainants named in the FIR or not ? The FIR is silent as to who among the assailants caused injury to the complainant or any person of the complainant party. The question yet to be determined is obviously very simple which is that whether only petitioners are responsible for opening fires resulting to injuries to the complainant party? So this aspect of the case is also a question of further inquiry.
4. I, therefore, allow this petition and direct for immediate release of petitioners on bail, but only subject to furnishing personal bail bonds by the petitioners, each in the amount of Rs.500,000 (Five Lac) with one surety for each petitioner, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of any Judicial Magistrate at Chilas or at Gilgit. The Judicial Magistrate is further directed to send the bonds so received to the trial court concerned after issuing release orders in the light of above order. Petition allowed. This file be consigned to record.
HBT/195/GB Bail granted.