Shahid Hameed Dar, J.--Through this constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, the petitioner calls in question the legality of order dated 18.1.2014, whereby an application moved by him under Section 23, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (hereinafter to be read as the Act), for transfer of his case to a Court of regular jurisdiction, has been dismissed by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No, I, Gujranwala.
2. The facts relevant to this petition are that Mst. Madiha Hanif, aged 20, a student of 4th year in Nursing School, Civil Hospital, Sialkot, real daughter of Muhammad Hanif (Respondent No, 5), was murdered by some unknown accused, who threw her dead body at Khawaja Safdar Road near Kashmir Park; she lived in a rented house, which she left on 17.11.2013 (Sunday) for the house of her aunt, as told by daughter of master of the said fiouse, at 6.30 p.m. The same day, to Muhammad Hanif (complainant), who worked as Wireless Operator in the Police department; he searched for his daughter, who did not return home till late night; he received an information at 8.30 a.m. On 18.11.2013 that his daughter's dead body lay at Khawaja Safdar Road, whereon he along with his companions reached the said road and found this information correct; he reported the crime to the police, which led to registration of case F.I.R. No, 765, dated 18.11.2013, under Section 302/34 P.P.C., at Police Station Cantt., Sialkot; he rendered a supplementary statement on 19.11.2013, wherein he named Dr.Eman, Hafiz Bilal Farooq (petitioner) and an unknown person, on the information of Muhammad Idrees and Muhammad Arshad PWs, as accused for having ravished and murdered his daughter; the petitioner, Hafiz Bilal Farooq, after having been arrested on 28.11.2013, rendered a confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Before the learned special judicial magistrate, Sialkot on 2.12.2013, whereby he furnished detailed account of the unfortunate incident with the contention that Dr. Eman Hakim had called Mst. Madiha Hanif, staff nurse, to Allama Iqbal Memorial Hospital, Sialkot, drank to his fill, raped her, tortured her, injected same intoxicant into her body, due to which she gradually turned enervated, whereafter he asked him (petitioner) to have sex with her, so he too followed by another boy committed zina with her; the girl succumbed to the heavy dose of intoxication and her dead body was put in his car by Dr.Eman and taken to Christian Town late night; they all threw it at Khawaja Safdar Road and slipped away; Dr. Eman Hakim, a Christian, did not surrender before the police and he surreptitiously left the country, probably for Dubai or Thailand; on finalization of investigation, challan against the petitioner was submitted before the learned Anti-Terrorism Court, Gujranwala for trial of the accused, where it is pending now.
3. The petitioner having developed the notion that the offence allegedly committed by him did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Special Court constituted under the Act, moved an application under Section 23 thereof, for transfer of his case to a Court of regular jurisdiction, but failed, as the learned trial Court did not agree to his whimsical thought and observed that the alleged offence committed by him and his co-accused fell within the ambit of Section 6 of the Act, which defines terrorist act, therefore, the same was exclusively triable by it. The reasoning which prevailed with the learned trial Court to reach the said conclusion was that brutality committed by the doctor and his companions on a nurse of the same hospital was likely to strike terror and fright, leading to an atmosphere of insecurity and self-doubt amongst the nurses.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that none of the staff nurses made any statement that the alleged act of the accused had created any feeling of insecurity or caused terror to them; the alleged offence was committed in a room of the hospital, in the dark hours of the night, which must have gone unnoticed by the hospital staff or the people living around, therefore, question as to spreading of terror, fright or sense of insecurity does not arise; lastly submits that the petitioner's trial by the Special Court would not only be ultra-vires of the Act but it would be against the law laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan.
5. Learned Additional Advocate General Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the Complainant/Respondent No, 5 has opposed the petition by submitting that the accused have committed a scheduled offence, which must have led to a feeling of insecurity and terror, particularly in the staff nurses of the country, wherever they were posted and it is sufficient to constitute a terrorist act within the meaning of Section 6 of the Act.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we have straightaway noticed that the petitioner and his co-accused have committed a gruesome and barbaric act, the details whereof are hair-raising. The unfortunate budding staff nurse would never have thought that a doctor of the same hospital, where she studied as a student of 4th year, would turn monster, tear her virginity apart and take her life to conceal his evil-doing. The end, the deceased nurse met with, is most unfortunate and pathetic. Dr. Eman must be a trusted person for the ill-fated nurse, who might not have thought twice before leaving her residence for going to Allama Iqbal Memorial Hospital, Sialkot on the asking of the said doctor-accused. It must have been beyond, even her wild imagination that the doctor, she daily worked with, for many hours would betray the confidence and faith, she reposed in him. Each and every bit of the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner and his co-accused hints at their fiendish conduct and demeanour, which is likely to cause fright and terror to any, who learnt about this shocking incident, let it be the class of nurses alone.
7. It would be useful to reproduce Section 6 of the Act, which reads as under: "(b) commits a scheduled offence, the effect of which will be, or be likely to be, to strike terror, or create a sense of fear and insecurity in the people, or any section of the people, or to adversely affect harmony among different Sections of the people."
The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that none of the staff nurses made any statement to the effect that the alleged act of the accused had created any feelings of insecurity or it was likely to strike terror, is wholly fallacious, as the law does not require that in order to determine whether a particular act, committed by the accused created terror or feeling of insecurity or it fell within the mischief of the act of terrorism, the evidence of the witnesses should be recorded. It is the descriptive text of the F.I.R. And other attending circumstances of the case, which accumulatively would tell whether the alleged' offence would fall within the purview of any of the provisions of the Act. The manner in which, the accused petitioner and his co-accused behaved themselves at the time of the alleged occurrence clearly suggests that the act done by them had a nexus with the object of the Act and thus it was squarely covered under Sections 6 and 7 thereof. It has been held in case titled Nazir Ahmad and others v. Nooruddin and another (2012 S.C.M.R. 517) that neither motive nor intention for commission of the offence is relevant for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the Anti-Terrorism Court, rather it is the act, designed to create sense of insecurity or to destabilize the republic at-large, which attracts the provisions of Section 6 of the Act. To determine if an offence fell within the ambit of Section 6 of the Act, it would be essential to have a glance over the allegations made in the F.I.R., record of the case and surrounding circumstances, besides looking into the essentialities whether the ingredients of the alleged offence had any nexus with the object of the Act, as contemplated under Sections 6, 7 and 8 thereof. In an equally sensitive case, Mst. Raheela Nasreen v. The State and another, reported as 2002 S.C.M.R, 908, wherein Major Sajjad Naseer, who was a serving officer in Pakistan army, was allegedly killed by the female-accused, his wife, in connivance of Wajid Faqir, his Batman, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan observed as under: "7. From a bare, reading of Section 6(b) of the Act, it is manifest that it is not necessary that the offence as alleged had in fact, caused terror as the requirement of the said provision of law could be adequately satisfied if the same was likely to strike terror or sense of fear and insecurity in the people.
8. The learned Judges of the High Court came to the conclusion that a Batman who was a trusted person of an army officer if he kills as alleged his master in connivance with his (master's) wife, the same was likely to strike terror or feeling of insecurity among the army officers which reasonings in our view are based on relevant consideration having logical nexus with the relevant law and do not suffer from any legal infirmity."
7. The record reveals that many staff nurses of the Nursing School, Allama Iqbal Memorial Teaching Hospital, Sialkot, moved an application before the Investigating Officer on 4.12.2013 stating therein that they all were under tremendous mental pressure and agony because of the terrifying act of Dr.Eman and his co-accused. They further contended therein that ghastly act of the accused had gripped all the students in indescribable fear and their nursing school looked a haunted place. How can it be considered that the alleged crime had gone unnoticed, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner? Though it was committed in a room of the hospital at night, yet, its detail, which surfaced later on, was immensely shocking, which created either a sense of insecurity, especially amongst the nurses as a whole or it was likely to terrorize them. Prima facie, Dr.Eman and his co- accused including the petitioner were taken over by their criminal and lecherous self and they joined hands satanically to ravish and murder a poor staff nurse. The appalling savagery of crime allegedly committed by them was not an ordinary incident. The doctor was a trusted companion, who played false and slabbed in the back. It must have shocked and jolted the staff nurses all over.
The ferocity of the alleged offence must, have emitted shock waves and signals of unknown fear, dislodging their mental peace with the feeling of insecurity and vulnerability. The case is being tried by the Court established under the Act in a lawful manner. We find no jurisdictional defect in the impugned order, hence, it does not warrant interference by this Court. There being no merit in this petition, it is hereby dismissed.