' Petitioners, Malik Maqbool Hussain, Amaad-ul-Hassan and Rana Hassan Mehmood, seek post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,522, dated 3-9-2010, under sections 324/353/188/186/148/149/427, P.P.C.
Read with sections 3/4 of Amplifier Act and section 7 of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, registered at Police Station Margala, Islamabad, on the complaint of Abid Ikram, Inspector.
2. Precisely the prosecution story is that the protesting employees of PTCL being led by the petitioners and others started chanting slogans on speaker and encircled PTCL building on 3-9- 2010, whereupon a strong contingent of the police attempted to haul them upon as some of them were required in case F.I.R. No,517, dated 1-9-2010; the protestors because of the action of the police Started pelting stones on them and also resorted to straight firing due to which certain police officials received injuries, including Muhammad Bashir, constable, who received a fire arm injury on his left arm, whereas Ghulam Muhammad Baqir Inspector, Shahid Bukhari and Muhammad Asad, constables, received injuries due to brick bating by the petitioners and their co-accused. The protestors also damaged a police vehicle, blocked the road and caused panic and terror to the public at large. Thirty five protestors, including the petitioners, were, however, arrested by the police at the place of occurrence; on their physical search the petitioners were found in possession of illicit fire arms, which were taken into possession and separate cases were registered against them under the relevant provisions of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent, they have not committed any offence and they have been victimized by the administration of the PTCL department as they wanted to choke and check the petitioners and others so as to stop them from raising their legitimate demands; the police have committed highhandedness in this case having colluded with the top brass of the PTCL department and false events have been fabricated by the SILO. To falsely rope the petitioners in the instant case only to please their benefactors; the whole - story contained in the F.I.R. Is false and, a product of exaggeration; the instant F.I.R. Is being used to pressurize the petitioners and other employees of the PTCL by the aforesaid administration to demoralise the petitioners; no specific role has been assigned to the petitioners, except a general allegation of brick batting; further submits that the co-accused of the petitioners, who have identical case as regards to the case of the petitioners, have been admitted to post arrest bail by the learned trial Court so, the petitioners are entitled to the grant of post arrest bail on the rule of consistency.
4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel assisted by the leaned counsel for the injured P.Ws.
Have opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners with the submissions that the petitioners had formed an unlawful assembly and committed the act of rioting during the course of which they created the law and order situation and thus committed an offence within the meaning of section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, besides other offences; the police did its lawful duty when they attempted to catch the petitioners as they were required to be arrested in a criminal case; the petitioners have been assigned specific role and their case is distinguishable from those who have been admitted to bail after arrest by the learned trial Court; the fire arms were recovered from the petitioners and separate cases under West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, were registered against them and they have a history of involvement in other criminal cases of the alike nature as well; the case of the petitioners is hit by the provisions of section 21(d) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, as it contains a bar for the grant of bail to those who have a tendency of. Repeating the offence time and again; lastly contends that the petitioners are not entitled for the relief prayed for as the Investigating Officer has recovered 12 empties, which support the allegations of firing as contained in the F.I.R.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. We find that a number of co-accused of the petitioners have been admitted to post arrest bail on 9-9-2010, facing almost similar and identical charges and the bail granting order passed by the learned trial Court has not been impugned by the complainant as yet. There are no circumstances which can discriminate the case of the petitioners from the case of their co-accused who have been admitted to bail by the learned trial Court. We have gone through the text of the F.I.R. Which indicates that the petitioners and other protestors had come on the road to press their demands regarding increase in salary or attainment of other lawful rights. At the start it was a peaceful congregation/procession which exploded into an action as alleged in the F.I.R., only after interference was made by the police to arrest the petitioners and others in connection with case F.I.R. No,517 of 2010. The involvement of the petitioners in other cases can hardly impede the grant of bail to the petitioners as, they have not been convicted in any criminal case so far. As the alleged occurrence was committed by a mob of about 250/300 people, so it shall be pretty difficult at this stage to distinguish as to who could be held specifically responsible for the above said alleged offences which can be best assessed, after recording of evidence by the learned trial Court. We have also examined the medico legal repot of Muhammad Shabbir, injured, which contains description of a grazed wound on his left arm, falling within the definition of section 337-F(i), P.P.C., punishable with imprisonment for one year. Application of section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, is also open to serious exception. Prima facie there are reasonable grounds to believe that the case of the petitioners calls for further inquiry, as envisaged under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
' For the foregoing reasons the instant petition is allowed and the petitioners are admitted to post arrest bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.