1996 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Saleem Khan Gandapur for the State. Date of hearing: 18th March, 1996. Inayatullah Khan son of Makhdoom Jan, petitioner herein, seeks his release on 'bail in case F.I.R. No.96, dated 10-11-1993 registered at Police Station Dadiwala, wherein he is charged under section 324/34, P.P.C. for having caused grievous injury to the complainant Afsar Khan by firing at him in common intention with the other co-accused. He has been refused bail by the forum below and hence this Court for the same relief.

2. I have considered the arguments advanced on either side and carefully perused the record.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the case against the accused is exclusively triable by the Special Court and in view of the provisions contained in the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 (hereinafter called as the Act), the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail and there is sufficient material on record to connect him with the commission of the scheduled offence, besides the fact that the accused/petitioner remained fugitive from law for a considerable long time.

4. The instant case was registered on 10-11-1993 and the accused/petitioner was arrested on I6-12-1995. The investigation was not completed within fourteen days as required by section 5(1) of the Act ibid, vis-a- vis the trial was also not concluded speedily within the meanings of section 5-A of the Act. The adjournments in the case have been frequently granted for more than two days which is also violative of the provisions contained in subsection (2) of section 5-A of the Act. The provisions of a Special Law should not be always taken against an accused so stringently so as to bring him down to the category of a subject rather than a citizen who, without being a terrorist, might have acted or reacted in response to the strong and normal impulses of his own motives and enmities, subjectively justified. A Special Law can no doubt be enacted to provide certain special behaviours towards certain accused as it was in case of Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, but that law requires to be applied as a whole. No pick and choose can be allowed for the benefit of the prosecution on the one hand and detriment of the accused on the other. If the law' contains specific provisions that imperatively provide for the submission of challan within a period of fourteen days and for the conduct of trial in a speedy manner with day-to-day hearing. If all these provisions, even if stringent, are applied together and at one time, there is a strong likelihood of final decision of the case even before the accused could feel to be released on bail. In the instant case, the provisions of sections 5(1) and 5-A of the Act aforesaid have hot been strictly complied with. The injured was examined by the doctor on 10-11-1993 and the medico-legal report does not show the injury attributed to the accused to have been extended to the body cavity, nor it has caused any fracture of the bone, nor any impairment temporary or permanent of any organ of the body and thus the accused is entitled to a lenient treatment.

5. As far as the abscondence is concerned, it is also not an absolute rule for the refusal of bail to an accused when he is otherwise entitled to it on merits.'

6. In such circumstances, the petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bond in the sum of Rs. one lac with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, who shall see that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means. N.H.Q./1945/P Bail allowed.