' This order will dispose of forty five (45) inter se connected cancellation of bail applications moved by the State under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. Being offended of orders dated 12-4-2013, 6-5-2013, 14-5- 2013 and 29-5-2013, passed by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No,II Lahore, whereby some of the respondents-accused (thirty eight (38) in number) have been granted bail before-arrest vide orders dated 14-5-2013 and 29-5-2013 and some of them (fifty one (51) in number) have been allowed post-arrest-bail vide orders dated 12-4-2013, 6-5-2013, 14-5-2013 and 29-5-2013.
Necessary particulars of the petitions, to be dealt with herein, are drawn hereunder:-- {{TABLE}} Sr. No, Petition No, Title: Date of impugned order Nature of bail granted.
1 Cr.M.No, 5545/ CB- 2013 The Slate v. Umar Mehmood and 3 others 12-4-2013. Post-arrest 2 Cr.M. No, 5546/ CB- 2013 The State v. Fazal Hussain. 12-4-2013 Post-arrest 3 Cr.M.No, 5605/ CB- 2013 The State v. Sheikh Khalil and 3 others 12-4-2013. Post-arrest 4 Cr.M.No, 5606/CB- 2013 The State v. Mubashar and 4 others 12-4-2013. Post-arrest 5 Cr. M. No . 5607/ CB- 2013. The State v. Tariq and another 12-4-2013. Post-arrest #TBS Sr. No, Petition No, Title: Dale of impugned order Nature of bail granted.
19 Cr.M.No, 6313/ CB- 2013. The State v. Muhammad Nadeem 6-5-2013. Post-arrest 20 Cr.M.No, 6314/ CB- 2013. The State v. Amir Monza and another 6-5-2013. Post-arrest 21 Cr.M.No, 6427/ CB- 2013. The State v. Muhammad Shabbir 6-5-2013. Post-arrest 22 Cr.M.No, 6609/ CB- 2013. Faisal Masih v.
Gulshad Khan and .5 others. 14-5-2013. Post-arrest 23 Cr.M.No, 6863/ CB- 2013. Aslam Masih v.
Muhammad Usman and 27 others. 14-5-2013. Pre-arrest/ Post-arrest 24 Cr.M.No, 7095/ CB- 2013. The State v. Muhammad lqbal 14-5-2013. Pre-arrest 25 Cr.M.No, 7096/ CB- 2013. The State v. Muhammad Asghar 14-5-2013. Pre-arrest 26 Cr.M.No, 7097/ CB- 2013. The State v. Muhammad Usman Butt 14-5-2013. Pre-arrest 27 Cr.M.No, 7098/ CB- 2013. The State v. Liaqat 14-5-2013. Pre-arrest 28 Cr.M.No, 7099/ CB- 2013. The State v. Abdullair and another 14-5-2013. Pre-arrest 29 Cr.M.No, 7100/ CB- 2013. The State v. Rasheed Ahmad alias Sheeda 14-5-2013. Post-arrest 30 Cr.M.Nos. 7101/ CB- 2013. The State v. Solid Mushtaq 14-5-2013. Post-arrest 31 Cr.M.No, 7102/ CB- 2013. The State v. Muhammad Rashid and 2 others. 14-5-2013. Pm-arrest #TBE #TBS Sr. No, Petition No, Title: Date of impugned order Nature of bail granted.
6 Cr.M.No, 5608/ CB- 2013. The State v. Muhammad Riaz 12-7-2013. Post-arrest 7 Cr.M.No, 5609/CB- 2013. The State v. Fazal Akbar Khan alias Akbar Khan 12-4-2013. Post-arrest 8 Cr.M.No, 5610/ CB- 2013. The State v. Mukhtar Ahmad 12-4-2013. Post-arrest 9 Cr.M.No, 5611/ CB- 2013. The State v. Muhammad Munawar Khan 12-4-2013. Post-arrest 10 Cr.M.No, 5612/ CB- 2013. The State v. Lttam-ut- Haq and another 12-4-2013. Post-arrest 11 Cr.M.No, 5613/ CB- 2013. The State v. Haji Khar Bakhsh 12-4-2013. Post-arrest 12 Cr.M.No, 5614/ CB- 2013. The State v. Muhammad Nazir alias Jeera and another 12-4-2013. Post-arrest 13 Cr.M.No, 5615/ CB- 2013. The State v. Abdul Rasheed and 4 others. 12-4-2013. Post-arrest 14 Cr.M.No, - 6308/ CB- 2013. The State v. Bashir Khan and another 6-5-2013. Post-arrest 15 Cr.M.No, 6309/ CB- 2103. The State v. Jaffar Khan 6-5-2013. Post-arrest 16 Cr.M.No, 6310/ CB- 2013. The State v. Amjad Ali Khan and another 6-5-2013. Post-arrest 17 Cr.M.No, 6311/ CB- 2013. The State v. Nadeem 6-5-2013. Post-arrest 18 Cr.M.No, 6312/ CB- 2013. The State v. Gu/shad Khan and 2 others 6-5-2013. Post-arrest #TBE Sr. No, Petition No, Title: Date of impugned order Nature of bail granted.
32 Cr.M.No, 7103/ CB- 2013. The State v. Shahid Imran 14-5-2013. Pre-arrest 33 Cr.M.No, 7104/ CB- 2013. The State v. Amjad alias Mian and 2 others. 14-5-2013. Post-arrest 34 Cr.M.No, 7105/ CB- 2013. The State v. Muhammad Tariq. 14-5-2013. Pre-arrest 35 Cr.M.No, 7106/ CB- 2013. The State v. Mohsin Ali and another. 14-5-2013. Pre-arrest 36 Cr.M.No, 7107/ CB- 2013. The State v. Fayyaz and another 14-5-2013. Pre-arrest 37 Cr.M.No, 7108/ CB- 2013. The State v: Razzaq alias Jaka 14-5-2013. Pre-arrest 38 Cr . M. No, 7109/ CB- 2013. The State v. Tariq Gujjar and 3 others 14-5 -2013 . Pre-arrest 39 Cr.M.No, 7110/ CB- 2013. The State v. Safdar and 2 others 14-5-2013. Pre-arrest 40 Cr. M. No, 7111/ CB- 2013. The State v. Muhammad Nawaz Sharif. 14-5-2013. Pre-arrest 41 Cr.M.No, 7112/ CB- 2013. The State v. Bilal Khan. 14-5-2013. Pre-arrest 42 Cr.M.No, 7387/ CB- 2013. The State v. Muhammad Sadiq alias Accha and 3 others 14-5-2013. Pre- arrest 43 Cr.M.No, 7388/ CB- 2013. The State v. Abid Yagoob. 14-5-2013. Pre-arrest .44 Cr.M.No, 7389/ CB- 2013. The State v. Muhammad Shafique alias Chiko. 29-5-2013. Post-arrest 45 Cr.M.No, 7390/ CB- 2013. The State v. Basharat and 5 others. 29-5-2013. Pre-arrest {{TABLE}}
2. The beneficiaries of afore-noted orders of bail-before-arrest may be enlisted as under:--
(1) Muhammad Usman Butt, (2) Muhammad Asim, (3) Muhammad Nawaz Sharif (4) Fayyaz, (4)
Majid Hussain, (5) Tariq Gujjar, (6) Sharafat Hameed, (7) Mian Saleem, (8) Iftikhar Ahmad, (9) Sher Gujjar, (10) Muhammad Rashid, (11) Muhammad Shehzad, (12) Muhammad Asif, (13) Muhammad Asghar, (14) Mohsin Ali, (15) Liaqat Ali alias Liaqi, (16) Murad Ali, (17) Safdar, (18) Muhammad Ashraf,
(19) Aman Ullah, (20) Razzaq alias Jaka, (21) Liaqat, (22) Abdullah, (23) Saif Ullah, (24) Bilal Khan,
(25) Muhammad Tariq, (26) Muhammad Iqbal, (27) Shahid Imran, (28) Muhammad Sadiq, (29)
Muhammad Hanif, (30) Muhammad Riaz alias Raja, (31) Muhammad Saleem, (32) Abid Yaqoob,
(33) Basharat, (34) Ghulam Abbas, (35) Chan alias Chani, (36) Muhammad Siddique, (37) Sajjad Hussain and (38) MoM Khan.
3. Whereas those, who were granted post-arrest bail vide mentioned orders read as follows:--
(44) Inam-ul-Haq, (2) Ch. Muhammad Bashir, (3) Umar Mehmood, (4) Ali Muhammad, (5)
Muhammad Nabeel, (6) Muhammad Adil, (7) Muhammad Nazir, (8) Muhammad Rafique, (9) Abdul Rashid 10) Zahid Qadeer, (11) Muhammad Akbar, (12) Naeem Khan, (13) Muhammad Israr, (14)
Muhammad Riaz, (15) Tariq, (16) Sher Muhammad, (17) Mubashar, (18) Muhammad Ahmad, (19)
Muhammad Tariq, (20) Muhammad Ali, (21) Muhammad Afzal, (22) Sh.Khalil, (23) Sh. Muhammad Imran, (24) Muhammad Irfan, (25) Mukhtar Ahmad, (26) Muhammad Munawar Khan, (27) Haji Kher Bakhsh, (28) Fazal Hussain, (29) Muhammad Imran, (30) Fazal Akbar Khan, (31) Nadeem, (32)
Muhammad Nadeem, (33) Amjad Ali, (34) Zabid Khan, (35) Bashir Khan, (36) Khan Wadha, (37)
Amir Hamza, (38) Hukam Khan, (39) Muhammad Shabbir, (40) Jaffar Khan, (41) Gulshad Khan, (42)
Khurshid Khan, (43) Aitbar Gull, Rashid Ahmad alias Sheeda, Amjad alias Mian, (46) Abdul Latif alias Chairman, (47) Muhammad Hussain, (48) Shahid Imran, (49) Sajid Mushtaq, (50) Muhammad Imran, and (51) Muhammad Shafique alias Chiko.
4. All the respondents-accused along with their co-accused stand involved in case-FIR No,114, dated 9-3-2013, for offences under sections 148, 186, 353, 427, 436, 324, 295-A, 397, 149, P.P.C., read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, registered at Police Station Badami Bagh, Lahore, which precisely entails a story narrated by Hafiz Abdul Majid Inspector/S.H.O. (complainant) to the effect that one Sawan Masih alias Bodi Masih, an accused of case FIR No,112/13, registered for offence under section 295-C, P.P.C. At Police Station Badami Bagh, Lahore, was arrested by the police and this was in the knowledge of all Muhallandars and owners of iron-godowns, but in spite of it, heavy contingents of the police were deployed in the area to avoid any law and order situation; the Christians of the locality were asked to shift to some other places so as to stay away from any untoward incident; it was at about 1.30 p.m., the same day (9-3-2013), that DSP Badami Bagh learnt through his sources that some miscreants intended to attack Christian's habitat, Joseph Colony, whereon re-enforcement was called-in through wireless control and a number of teams were posted at the spot to thwart the lurking danger; in the meanwhile, thousands of subverters, majority whereof was armed, attacked Joseph Colony, ransacked the houses, torched shops, houses and a church and fired straight at the police, whereon law-enforcers took measures to check the evildoings; fire-tenders attempted to extinguish the fire, but being at a large scale, it burnt many a houses and shops; the criminal act of the accused caused injuries to 40/50 police officials, who were sent to the hospital for treatment; the saboteurs included Tariq Gujjar etc. (eighty three (83) named) besides, thousands of others, who might be identified through video- footages.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted in unison that the bail-granting orders are illogical and illegal besides being gratuitous, which are liable to be set-aside; the barbaric act of the respondents-accused has not been properly viewed and analyzed by the learned bail granting court and it passed the impugned orders as if a minor offence had been committed by them; the evidence of the victims as well as that of the injured police-officials has not been given due appreciation and settled principles for grant/refusal of bail have been contemptuously overlooked by the learned trial court while making the impugned orders; the prosecution case brimmed with incriminating evidence against the accused, which was not given due weight while setting the respondents-accused at liberty; the barbarity shown by the accused was of the worst degree, which left hundreds of houses and shops of the Christian community gutted and razed to the ground, but the learned trial court overlooked the ferociousness of crime, almost in a blindfolded manner; the offence committed, squarely constituted an act of terrorism, which is covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., besides the other offences, which also catch the prohibition of the Code; the impugned orders have resulted in grave miscarriage of justice, hence, they may be recalled and respondents-accused may be ordered to be arrested and sent to jail.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-accused have contended that the allegations against the respondents were vague and of generalized nature, which were hardly supported by any material, worthwhile; the impugned orders perfectly fit in with the settled principles of dispensation of criminal justice, hence, they do not call for any interference by this court; the complainant's version, as contained in the FIR, clearly shows that it was merely speculative and estimative, not even remotely linked with the ground realities; the nomination of some of the respondents-accused in the FIR and that of the others, in the supplementary statements of the complainant is based on dishonesty, mischievousness and mala fide intention of the police; the impugned orders are based on sound foundations and they have been passed unerringly by the learned trial court, hence, they may be sustained at the cost of top-listed petitions.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that there exists a crucial circumstance on the record, which probably could not catch the eye of both the sides and it relates to dismissal of seven cancellation of bail applications, Criminal Petition No,701- L/2013 to Criminal Appeal No,707-L/2013, filed by the State through Prosecutor General Punjab, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide order dated 22-7-2013, as they were found time-barred and miscellaneous applications annexed thereto, seeking condonation of delay in filing of the said petitions, had not been found by the apex court, based on sufficient and acceptable reasons. The state had filed the above-noted criminal petitions against orders dated 7-5-2013, passed by this court in Crl. Misc. Nos.4657-B, 4666-B, 4674-B, 4816-B, 4848-B, 4928-B and 5362-B of 2013, through which a number of accused of this case, who faced identical allegations like the respondents- accused herein did, were granted post-arrest-bail. In brief, the bail granting order passed by this court on 7-5-2013, noted as above, is still intact. Learned counsel for the petitioners in fact were required to draw a line of distinction between the beneficiaries of the bail granting order dated 7- 5-2013 of this court, against whom afore-referred seven cancellation of bail applications were dismissed by the apex court and the respondents-accused herein, but they failed to do so and they merely harped on the string that the accused committed the crime barbarously; thirty eight
(38) respondents-accused had been granted extra-ordinary relief of bail-before-arrest gratuitously; the appalling savagery of the accused had not been drastically dealt with by the court below and impugned orders were patently illegal and unsustainable. The above said applications, though, have been dismissed by the apex court on the technical ground, yet outcome and effect thereof added strength to validity and maintainability of the orders called-in-question before this court. On the face of it, the respondents-accused, as named in para 3 above, have a case, which impeccably assimilates the case of the respondents as mentioned in Criminal Petition No,701-L/2013 to Criminal Petition No,707-L/2013 (supra). So far as the case of thirty eight (38) respondents-accused, as named in para 2 above, is concerned, it too, merit-wise, is not much different from that of the other respondents, mentioned in para 3 above, albeit they have been granted bail before arrest by the learned trial court. Both sets of the respondents are seemingly united with a common bond, which is none other than the one that their case squarely constituted need for further probe into their guilt within the scope of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The law requires that equity of treatment has to be maintained amongst the accused placed in similar or identical circumstances. The story of FIR contains such sort of accusations, which may require the prosecution to make an extra effort and use additional ounces of its energy to prove at trial that they were not fictional or exaggerative. Apparently, the petitioners have an insurmountable obstacle to climb up and it is the afore-noted order of the apex court, which stands sky-high in their way. The petitioners present endeavour has to be nipped right now before letting it swell further.
8. We have not come across even a single circumstance in the impugned orders, which may render them unsustainable in the eyes of law. Cancellation of bail can be ordered only on very strong and exceptional grounds like, the accused being on bail repeats the offence, hampers process of investigation or that of the trial, commits the folly of suborning or intimidating prosecution witnesses, shows a mood to run away from the control of the sureties or misuses the concession of bail in any other way. Once an accused has been admitted to bail, by a competent Court of jurisdiction, exceptional circumstances would be required to interfere with the bail- granting order and here, in the instant case, no such circumstance exists, as mentioned herein- above, which may warrant interference therewith by this Court. The impugned orders do not appear to have been passed in vacuum, nor they are seemingly hit by a terminal infirmity. A bail granting order may only be prone to interference under section 497(5), Cr.P.C., if the same is arbitrary, absurd or fanciful, which is not the situation in the instant case. The discretion left in the Court under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. Is pari materia with the principles, which apply to setting aside of the orders of acquittal. Reference in this regard may be advantageously made to the case titled: Mian Dad v. The State and another (1992 SCM R 1286) and Muzaffar Iqbal v. Muhammad Imran Aziz and others (2004 SCM R 231).
9. A few words about the quality of investigation conducted in this case, which we have simply found disgusting. To investigate the crime, is one of the primary tasks of the police. The graver the offence, wider, broader and deeper should be the scale of knowledge, professionalism and expertise. A high profile case certainly requires a competent and brainy investigating officer to investigate the matter. The occurrence as contained in the above said FIR, without second thought, required the services of the investigating officer of the highest caliber, so as to bring the real culprits to books. It was a tragic incident, which left many a question marks on the competence and competitiveness of the police and other law enforcing agencies. The police used their, often rejected and unapproved of, tactics during the investigation of this case without ever perceiving the sensitivity of the matter.
10. Massive unexplained delay in holding the test identification parade, the collective and generalized nature of the allegations, thick haziness and speculativeness looming large on the tenor of the prosecution case and fictional description of the events, without hinting at any believable evidence, have left a big question mark on the veracity of the allegations against the respondents-accused. The impugned orders passed by the learned trial Court are seemingly in line with a glittering observation, made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Malik Muhammad Ishaq's case (2011 SCM R 1350), that justice in the name of terrorism cannot be allowed to be brutalized. There exists no reason to believe that the impugned orders are factually incorrect or illegal, hence sustained.
11. Resultantly, all the petitions, as mentioned in para 1 of this order, are dismissed being destitute of merits.