2017 P Cr (PLP)

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.

The petitioners/accused were booked for the offences under sections 223/224/225/109/353/324, P.P.C. read with sections 6/7 of Anti-Terrorism Act. 1997 vide FIR No.12/2015 of Police Station Airport Gilgit.

2. The brief facts of the FIR have been given in the para 3 of the judgment of trial Court, which is reproduced for ready reference:- "Brief facts of the case are that on 27.2.2015 SIP Shams-ur-Rahman SHO Police Station Airport has registered FIR No.12/2015 on the murasila submitted by SIP Mumtaz Khan Incharge Police Guard District Jail, Gilgit wherein it has been stated that "today on 27.02.2015, I was present in a living room along with Jailor Imran. Suddenly, a loud cry "saying Prisoners are escaping, open fire" was heard. With this, a sound of somebody falling down was also heard. In the meanwhile noise of firing was heard. I along with Jailor Imran came out of the room and through the main gate of the Jail to the main road where firing was going on in the street attached with the Jail. It was known that, accused prisoners who were escaping, on being stopped, opened fire on Police in the corner of the street. From the counter firing of the Police, one accused prisoner received grievous injuries. I along with others went running towards the last corner and saw a person lying down in injured condition. I along with others took the said injured to the main gate of the Jail where he was identified as prisoner Hazrat Bilal. In the meanwhile, Personnel from Police Station Airport reached at the spot and dispatched the injured accused towards City Hospital where he succumbed to injuries. Further it was known that another accused prisoner who was injured in Police encounter has somehow reached the City Hospital. After that I informed the control room about the incident. When I reached in Barrack No. 6 in the portion No. 1 of the Jail to check the prisoners, detained accused namely Habib-ur -Rahman son of Molvi Yasin, Hazrat Bilal son of Munir Shah, Liaqat alias Akhtar son of Sabar Khan and Molvi Disbar son of Kashkar residents of Thak Chilas were not present in Barrack. There is a strong suspicion/impression that the instant incident took place due to the connivance, negligence and carelessness of the Jail staff deployed for the security of the prisoners."

3. The petitioners' post arrest bail was refused by the learned trial Court vide order/judgment dated 30/10/2016 and against the said order/judgment the petitioners have knocked the door of this Court for concession of bail.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have become entitled for the concession of bail as after submission of challan in the trial Court a new situation has emerged. The learned counsel read out the relevant portion "of final police report, wherein it is mentioned that the present petitioners were not privy to the main offence, neither they abated or assisted the principal accused, who escaped from judicial custody. It is also mentioned in the final police report that the petitioners were only negligent in performance of their duties, which offences are bailable. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners are behind the bars for 1-1/2 years and the early conclusion of trial is not insight, therefore the petitioners may be allowed bail to meet the ends of justice.

5. The learned Dy. A.G., opposed the bail petition and submitted that though there is no evidence that the petitioners were involved in the offence of abetment but they by not discharging their assigned duties provided a chance of escape to the high profile prisoners involved in the cases of Nanga Parbat and murder of Col. Muhammad Mustafa and SSP Diamer Talal Bangansh. The high profile accused/prisoners are at large and a constant danger for whole of the society for all the time to come. They managed their escape because of negligent and lethargic attitude of the petitioners and such like attitude of the petitioners does not entitle them for discretionary relief of bail.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and scanned the record with their valuable assistance. The, petitioners are behind the bars over 1-1/2 years without any substantial progress in the trial and in final police report it is mentioned in unequivocal terms that the petitioners were not involved in abetment/planning of escape, rather due to their negligence the high profile prisoners managed their escape. In such background, when the petitioners are government servants and there is no chance of their either abscondence or tampering with the prosecution evidence and their long detention in jail, we feel that a case of bail has been made out.

7. In the circumstances, the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (rupees five lac) with two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. WA/252/GB Bail granted.