Security for good behaviour

Prosecution case was that the name of accused was placed in Sched. IV of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997; that police were monitoring him and that the accused opened aerial firing near a government office

Held, Ss.188, 285 & 290, P.P.C. were bailable

Trial Court would thrash out during trial whether the accused was a member of proscribed organization or not, thus the case of accused was one of further inquiry

Accused was entitled for concession of bail

Even perusal of provisions of S.21-D(2) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, showed that S. 11-EE, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was also bailable

Accused was admitted to post arrest bail, in circumstances.

Liberty of the citizens cannot be curtailed merely on presumptions, satisfaction, as described under S.11-EE of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, would be objective in nature and not subjective

Authorities are not to act on whims and caprices without there being any material before them in support of grounds for placing name of a person in Fourth Sched. of the Act.

Federal Government might publish, in the official Gazette, a list of persons as proscribed persons in the Fourth Schedule under S.11-EE of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, if there were reasonable grounds to believe that such persons were involved in any activities linked in any manner with a proscribed organization or had concerns in terrorism

In terms of S.11-EE(3) of the Act, any person, being aggrieved of the order passed by the Federal Government under S.11-EE of the Act, might file a review application before the Federal Government, and if such review application was refused, then he might file appeal before the High Court within 30 days of the refusal of the review

Petitioners, in the present case, had been declared as proscribed persons through various notifications issued by the Government, and their description was fully mentioned in the list, which notification had not been challenged through present petition

Impugned list only described those persons, who had already been placed in Fourth Sched. of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 by Federal Government

Petitioners had not challenged the notifications under which their names had been placed in Fourth Sched. of the Act, either by filing a review application or appeal in terms of S.11-EE(3) of the Act within the prescribed period of limitation

Jurisdiction of High Court under Art, 199 of the Constitution could not be invoked where other adequate remedy was available to an aggrieved person

No legal infirmity or fault was pointed out in the impugned list

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Persistent inclusion of name of accused (petitioner) in the list under Fourth (4th) Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, for an indefinite period beyond three years

Validity

Provincial government (respondent) had not been able to bring any speck of material to substantiate their allegations against the accused, and in the absence of any tangible material justifying the inclusion of accused's name in the list under Fourth (4th) Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, he could not be legally required to execute a bond with sureties for a period exceeding three years as stipulated in S.11-EE(2)(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act ,1997

Persistent inclusion of the name of the accused in the list under Fourth (4th) Schedule for indefinite period beyond three years was prima facie violative to the provisions of Art.10(4) of the Constitution, which furnished sufficient indiscriminate protection of law to a citizen

Constitutional petition was allowed and Provincial Government was directed to delete the name of the accused from the list under Fourth (4th) Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.