' SAHIB KHAN, J.--- Itrat Hussain son of Muhammad Ismail petitioner has filed petition for his after- arrest bail as his petition has been refused by the Judge, A.T.C., Gilgit.
2. F.I.R. No,13 of 2005 of Police Station City Gilgit has been lodged on the complaint filed by one Akbar Aman wherein he has complained about the murder of Taighoon Nabi D.F.O. And putting on fire the residential house of Taighoon Nabi (deceased). It has been alleged in the complaint that other six (deceased) persons were also found dead on the spot, while two injured persons were brought to the hospital from the place of occurrence.
3. According to investigation few persons were found involved in the brutal incident some were arrested after the occurrence, while some declared as absconders. The trial of challaned persons began and was close to the conclusion of trial when one of absconder accused arrested, hence trial of newly arrested accused started and judgment against the petitioner could not be announced.
4. We have heard arguments of the learned counsel and gone through the record of case. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner has not been charged in the F.I.R. Nor any direct evidence is available on record. Mere allegation against the petitioner is seeing him passing through the gate of deceased Taighoon Nabi by the P.Ws. Which does not itself constitute any charge of murder of deceased persons. He further argued with force on the point of hardship that the special law of A.T.A. Focuses the need of early disposal of case against an accused charged with A.T.A. Offences. According to him in this case, the petitioner has been arrested soon after the occurrence neither the trial of the case has been finalized by the Court nor he has been allowed bail against the concept of A.T.A. Law. The learned counsel pointed out that one or more alleged absconders in the case have been arrested recently and therefore, trial has started against those and petitioner is behind the bar just for waiting conclusion of trial against newly arrested accused.
5. The learned Advocate-General for the State opposed the petition with the contention that the petitioner is involved in a heinous case and he has been charged by the P.Ws. Namely: Javed Akhtar and Iliyas in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. He requests for dismissal of petition.
6. We have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel and available record. It is available on the record that accused/petitioner has been arrested soon after the occurrence in January, 2005. After his arrest the trial could not conclude within a reasonable time due to non- availability of A.T.C. Judge for a certain period. However, when the trial came close to pronouncement of judgment one/some of the alleged absconder accused in the same case have been arrested. Ultimately, the Judge had no option except to re-start the trial pending judgment against the petitioner. The petitioner has to wait for conclusion of trial against the newly arrested accused. We could not find any provision in the relevant or general law that judgment can partially be announced against those who have faced trial, nor the learned counsel for the parties could cite any case-law on the point. Hence the plea of hardship found existed in favour of petitioner.
7. It is the initial duty of the Court of law and justice to disburse justice without going into the heinousness of the allegations and where the law favours the accused, Court should ensure to enforce the same. For this particular situation when we divert our attention towards the relevant provision of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 it is found that:--- 21(D)(4). In exercising its powers in relation to a person seeking bail under this Act the Court shall have regard to such of the following considerations (as well as to any other which it considers relevant).
(a) .......................................................................................................................
(b) .......................................................................................................................
(c) the time which the person has already spent in custody and the time which he is likely to spend in custody if he is not admitted to bail.
(d) .......................................................................................................................
8. Nazeer Muhammad co-accused attributed to similar role has already been released on bail by this Court, hence the universal rule of law called as "rule of consistency" demands that the petitioner too, is entitled for the same treatment already given to the co-accused of similar role.
9. We find it fit that the above provisions of law are fully attracted in the case and therefore, we accepted this petition vide our order, dated 18-6-2008. File.