2013 P Cr (PLP)

QAISER RASHID KHAN, J.

Having failed to get the concession of bail from the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, D.I. Khan vide order dated 4-8-2012, the accused/petitioners namely Mumtaz and Arshad Iqbal have moved the instant petition for their release on bail in case F.I.R. No.207 dated 15-7-2012 registered under section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act read with section 13, Arms Ordinance and section 5 of Explosive Substances Act.

2. As per the allegations contained in the F.I.R., Haroon-ur-Rashid, SHO Police Station Kulachi on general complaint that the accused/petitioners were involved in terrorist activities and had created harassment amongst the general public in the area due to which certain families had left their houses, he along with other police force headed by DSP Circle and after obtaining search warrant from the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kulachi, raided the house and arrested the accused/ petitioners and from the possession of accused/petitioner Mumtaz, one Kalashnikov along with magazine having 25 rounds, bandolier, three spare magazines having 60 rounds of 7.62 bore and two hand-grenades and that from possession of accused/petitioner Arshad Iqbal, one Kalashnikov along with fitted magazine having 25 rounds, bandolier, two spare magazines having 20 rounds each of 7.62 bore and a hand-grenade were recovered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the accused/petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the instant case due to mala fide reasons and ulterior motives; that the accused/petitioners have been termed as terrorists by the local police but instead, they themselves became the victim of a terrorist attack in which their brother namely, Muhammad Yousaf was brutally murdered and in respect of which an F.I.R. No.70 under sections 302/34, P.P.C. was lodged on 29-2-2012; that the bail was refused to them only on account of other F.I.Rs. registered against them which is no ground for refusal of bail when they have not been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction in those F.I.Rs.; that the accused/petitioners have no connection with any terrorist organization or group and that is why they did not offer any resistance to the police at the time of raid on their house; that there is no likelihood of the abscondence of the accused/petitioners if released on bail; that prima facie the case of the accused/petitioners is one of further inquiry and they are entitled to the concession of bail.

4. The learned A.A.-G. on his turn strongly resisted the bail petition and argued that there was a general complaint against the accused/petitioners as they had created a state of fear in the area so much so that few families had even migrated and, therefore, a search warrant was duly obtained from the learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Kulachi which not just led to the arrest of the accused/petitioners, but also huge quantity of arms and ammunitions; that the accused/petitioners are involved in a number of cases and, therefore, they are hardened and desperate persons and thus not entitled to the concession of bail.

5. Arguments heard and record perused.

6. As the record reveals, in view of the public outcry against the accused/petitioners who had created a state of fear among the general public and the fear in turn led to the migration of some families from the area, a proper search warrant was obtained from the learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Kulachi on 14-7-2012 and accordingly a raid was conducted by the police force led by the DSP Circle. The search of the house led to the arrest of the accused/petitioners duly armed with Kalashnikovs who attempted to make good their escape but were tactfully overpowered which led to the recovery of arms and ammunitions along with a hand-grenade. Even otherwise, the accused/petitioners have a long history of involvement in criminal cases in respect of which as many as six other F.I.Rs. have also been lodged. No doubt there is nothing on the record to suggest that they have been convicted in those F.I.Rs., but still the same can be kept in view while dealing with the present case. Barring section 13, Arms Ordinance, the other two sections of law i.e. 5 Explosive Substances Act and 7, Anti-Terrorism Act attract the prohibitory limb of section 497, Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the accused/petitioners are not entitled to the concession of bail.

7. For the foregoing reasons, the instant bail petition being bereft of any merit is hereby dismissed.

8. Any observations made in this order being tentative in nature should in no way prejudice the proceedings before the learned trial Court. MH/51/P Bail refused.