' The learned counsel has filed this writ petition to call in question order of the learned Judge, Anti- Terrorism Court-II, Gujranwal. The petitioner wanted transfer of his case from the ATC Court to the court of general jurisdiction in F.I.R. No,118, dated 1-4-2007, registered at P.S. Saddar, Gujrat.
2. According to the impugned order, time and mode of the occurrence in which one person was murdered and three injured by 26 accused, created sense of fear and insecurity in the public at large.
3. The learned counsel contended that the occurrence is based on enmity between the parties.
Neither there was intention of the accused persons to strike terror or fear to the public at large nor actually it happened.The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to 2005 PCr.LI 957, PLD 2004 Lah. 199, PLD 2004 Lah. 267, PLD 2005 SC 530 and 2007 SCMR 142.
4. We have heard the learned counsel and considered, his arguments and reasoning giving our thought.
5. The record shows that on the day of occurrence at 11-00 a.m. In the broad day-light, 26 accused persons armed with-firearms went to the mosque first and announced their intention to attack the complainant party. After making that announcement from the mosque, they attacked the complainant party from four sides. Some of the accused tore down the wall of the complainant and others started direct firing at them which resulted into death of one person and injuries to three persons. If the accused persons wanted to confine effect or fear of their attack to the complainant party only, they would not have gone to the mosque to make announcement of their attack against the complainant party. Mosque is the most sacred place and also a sanctuary for peace. It belongs to all Muslims being House of the God, not only for the same vicinity rather for the whole Muslim Ummah. Their could be no other purpose for going to mosque before attacking the complainant party except to terrorize the people of the vicinity and in the process accused also desecrated the religious and moral sanctity of the mosque. Therefore, we are not convinced by the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the occurrence was based on enmity only between the parties and its effect was limited to the parties. In our opinion, the manner in which the occurrence has been committed by the accused the purpose was to cause fear and to create panic, terror and traumatic effect in the whole vicinity. The cumulative effect of all the acts and transactions on part of the accused persons was to create sense of fear and insecurity in the vicinity by causing death of one person and injuring three other persons.
6. Mosque is a public place to which public or Ummah has free access, thus, the provisions of section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act would be fully applicable in this case. The present occurrence was completed in different stages. Firstly, the accused persons went to the mosque to make their intention known to the public at large followed by killing of one person and injuring three persons.
For further guidance, a reference may be made to Muhammad Farooq v. Ibrar PLD 2004 SC 917.
7. The facts and circumstances in the case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case, hence, are not applicable.
8. As a result of the foregoing reasons and discussion, this writ petition is dismissed.