1. This order will dispose of aforementioned bail petitions as these emanate from the one and same F.I.R.
2. 2.Through the instant petitions, the petitioners Muhammad Azam and Muhammad Saad Zulqarnain seek post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,33/2016 dated 07.04.2016, offences under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, read with Sections 7 & 11-W(2) of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, registered at Police Station Counter Terrorism Department, Multan.
3. 3.As per brief allegations levelled in the F.I.R, on 07.01.2016, the complainant Muhammad Tariq Javed, S.I, Counter Terrorism Department (CTD), Bahawalpur received a spy information that four persons being members of a band organization "Daish", were present near the Khanwa Canal and they were proceeding towards Khanqaa Shareef, situated within the limits of District Bahawalpur.
4. On this information, a raiding party was constituted and thereafter, the petitioners along with their co-accused were apprehended by the police and explosive substance weighing 500 grams was recovered from the possession of the Amir Saeed co-accused- whereas, eight electronic resisters and one meter prima cord were recovered from Muhammad Azam petitioner while 74 pamphlets containing hate material, one meter of electric wire, '/4 kg. iron nails, four cells of batteries, one scotch-tape etc were recovered from the Muhammad Saad Zulqarnain petitioner.
5. 4.Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. 5.As per brief allegations levelled in the F.I.R., eight electric resisters and one meter prima cord were allegedly recovered- from Muhammad Azam petitioner whereas 74 pamphlets containing hate material, one meter electric wire, '/4 kg iron nails, four cells of batteries, one scotch-tape and an amount of Rs,350/- were allegedly recovered from Muhammad Saad Zulqarnain petitioner. The explosive substance weighing 500 grams was recovered from the possession of Dr. Amir Saeed co- accused whereas explosive substance weighing and 1014 grams four electric batteries etc were recovered from wad co-accused. Dr. Aamer Saeed co-accused of the petitioners has already been granted post arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 13.06.2016, passed in Crl. Misc. No,977-B of 2016 on the following grounds: "6. Admittedly the petitioner is an Assistant Professor in the Punjab University, Lahore. He is a highly educated person. He has done his doctorae in the Hospital Management. The petitioner has admittedly been serving in the Punjab University, Lahore since the year-2008. He was appointed as Superintendent/ Caretaker of the Hostel, reserved for male bachelor teachers of the University by the Vice Chancellor of Punjab University vide letter dated 27.08.2008. The petitioner has also written and published his thesis on the topic of "Making Sense of Policy Implementation Process in Pakistan: The Case of Hospital Autonomy Reforms". The letter dated 27.08.2008, issued by the Vice Chancellor of Punjab University, Lahore, whereby the petitioner was appointed as Superintendent/Caretaker of the Hostel, reserved for male bachelor teachers of the University and the publication of the abovementioned thesis have been produced in the Court by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that as the petitioner was Superintendent/Caretaker of the Hostel of the Punjab University, Lahore for male Bachelor teachers and as one Professor Ghalib Atta of the Punjab University, Lahore was illegally apprehended by the officials of Counter Terrorism Department (CTD), Lahore from the abovementioned hostel, therefore, the petitioner being Superintendent of the said hostel launched a protest against the agencies, including the officials of CTD, Lahore, hence he was illegally arrested and confined by the officials of CTD, Lahore, whereupon the father-in-law of the petitioner namely Saeed Iqbal Qureshi, filed Writ Petition No, 1844 of 2016, in the nature of habeas corpus petition before the Lahore High Court, Lahore and during the pendency of the abovementioned writ petition, in order to justify the illegal detention of the petitioner, the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on the record the newspaper daily "Dawn" Lahore edition dated 08.12.2015, wherein the news regarding the detention of the abovementioned professor namely Ghalib Atta by the officials of CTD, Lahore has been published. We have noted that the abovementioned Writ Petition No, 1844 of 2016, filed by the father-in-law of the petitioner namely Saeed Iqbal Qureshi regarding the alleged illegal detention of the petitioner by the officials of CTD, Lahore was filed on 20.01.2016 and the learned Division Bench of this Court at the Principal Seat on 21.01.2016, directed the respondents of the said writ petition, including Deputy Inspector General of Counter Terrorism Department (C.T.D.) Punjab, Lahore to submit a reply and para-wise comments to the said petition before the next date of hearing and the case was adjourned for 03.02.2016. On 03.02.2016, ' parawise comments on behalf of SHO, Police Station CTD, Lahore, CCPO, Lahore and SHO, Police Station Muslim Town, Lahore were submitted before the Court and for submission of parawise comments on behalf of the remaining respondents, the case was adjourned for 17.02.2016. The Court vide the abovementioned order dated 02.03.2016, also directed the respondents to produce the petitioner before the Court, on the next date of hearing, if he was under the custody of the respondents of said petition. On 17.02.2016, learned Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan requested for an adjournment in order to trace out the petitioner namely Dr. Aamer Saeed, therefore, the case was adjourned to 02.03.2016. On the next date of hearing i,e, 02.03.201B, another request for adjournment was made by learned Law Officer in order to trace out the petitioner and the case was again adjourned to 24.03.2016. Eventually, the instant F.I.R. was lodged on 07.04.2016, against the petitioner and his co-accused, therefore, on 26.04.2016; the aforementioned writ petition, filed by the father-in-law of the petitioner was disposed of with the result that a copy of the said petition along with all its annexures was directed to be transmitted to the Deputy Inspector General of Police Punjab, Lahore, who was further directed to treat the same as an application of the petitioner and proceed further in the matter, in accordance with the law. It is evident from the perusal of the abovementioned Writ Petition No, 1844 of 2016, filed by the father- in-law of the petitioner that the claim of the father-in-law of the petitioner was that the petitioner was forcibly abducted and illegal confined by the officials of CTD, Lahore on the intervening night of 14/15.12.2016 and the abovementioned writ petition regarding illegal detention and recovery of the petitioner was filed on 20.01.2016 and the learned Division Bench of this Court also issued a direction for the recovery of the petitioner vide order dated 21.01.2016 and later on the instant F.I.R was lodged against the petitioner on 07.04.2016 i,e,, after three months and 12 days of the filling of the abovementioned Writ Petition No, 1844 of 2016, by the father-in-law of the petitioner before the Court regarding the alleged illegal detention of the petitioner. We have also noted that in the comments, submitted by some of the respondents of the above-mentioned writ petition, including the SHO, police station CTD, Lahore, the respondents, expressed their ignorance regarding the detention of the petitioner. The SHO, Police Station City CTD, Lahore in his written comments, filed in the above mentioned petition categorically stated that neither the petitioner was arrested nor he was required by the CTD, Lahore. As mentioned earlier, during the pendency of the above- mentioned writ petition an order for production of the petitioner before the Court was passed and eventually the instant FIR was lodged against the petitioner at police station CTD, Multan region.
7. Prima facie it appears that as the father-in-law of the petitioner moved a writ petition regarding the illegal detention of the petitioner against the officials of CTD, Lahore and a prayer for registration of F.1.R against the officials of CTD, Lahore for illegal confinement of the Petitioner was also made in the said writ petition and as the Court vide order dated 03.02.2016 issued a direction for production of the petitioner before the Court, therefore, in order to justify the detention of the petitioner, the instant F.I.R. has malafidely been lodged against the petitioner. The contention of learned APG that the petitioner managed to file the abovementioned Writ Petition No, 1844 of 2016, in order to create a defence in this case, does not appeal to the common sense, because it is a common observation that the accused, who are involved in terrorist activities, try their level best to conceal their identity from the public and law enforcing agencies and they secretly execute their plans and try to take their targets by surprise. It is not understandable that if the petitioner was not in the custody of CTD, Lahore,. then what benefit has been taken by him due to the filling of the above mentioned writ petition. It is also not understandable that how the petitioner was in the knowledge at the time of filling of abovementioned Writ Petition No, 1844 of 2016 i,e,, on 21.01.2016 that after three months and 12 days from the date of filling of abovementioned petition, he (petitioner) will be arrested by the officials of CTD Multan on 07.04.2016 and the present F.I.R. shall be registered against him, therefore, the filling of the abovementioned writ petition shall be used as a defence by the petitioner in the instant case. As mentioned earlier, the petitioner is a highly educated person and he is serving as Assistant Professor in the Punjab University, Lahore, since the year 2008. Learned APG has conceded on instructions that the petitioner never remained involved in any other criminal case. He has further conceded that the name of the petitioner was not even included in the 4th schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 199'1, with the allegation that he had any link with any banned organization. Keeping in view all the aforementioned facts, we are of the view that the case of the prosecution against the petitioner is one of further inquiry and it will be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of evidence that as to whether or not the case ii hand was malafidely lodged against the petitioner due to the filling of Writ Petition No, 1844 of 2016, against the officials of CM, Lahore, in order to justify illegal detention of the petitioner or the case of the prosecution against the petitioner is based on true facts.
7. In the light of above, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum. of Rs, 5,00,000/- (Rupees five hundred Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court."
8. Now coming to the case of the present petitioners namely Muhammad Saeed Zulqarnain and Muhammad Azam, we have noted that Muhammad Saeed Zulqarnain petitioner through Cr1. Misc.
9. No,4571 of 2016/BWP has placed on the record the documents regarding his service in Pakistan Mobile Communications Limited-Mobilink. According to the said documents, the petitioner was holding the post of Customer Care Representative (internal Grade: Associate II) in Floor Department of Commercial of the above mentioned company and remained on the said post till January 04, 2016. Muhammad Azam petitioner through Crl. Misc. No,4575 of 2016/BWP has also placed on the record the documents regarding his service according to which the said petitioner remained the Manager Finance & Taxation, Lub Gas (Pvt) Ltd. and he was serving in the above mentioned company since 27.01.1997. The pay slip of the above mentioned, petitioner has been placed on the record according to which he has been drawing the salary (a, Rs, 133535/- per month. He is also an active tax payer and his National Tax Number (NTN) is 1130684-0. He has paid an amount of Rs,96922/- as income tax in the year 2015. It is the case of the petitioners that they alongwith their co-accused Dr. Aamir Saeed have malafidely been implicated in this case by the prosecution because their aforementioned co-accused who was an Assistant Professor in the Punjab University, launched a protest against the arrest of his colleague Professor Ghalib Atta of the Punjab University and as they (petitioners) have also joined the aforementioned co-accused Dr. Aamer Saeed in the protest launched against the agencies, therefore, they were falsely implicated in this case by the Counter Terrorism Department (CTD), Lahore. We have also noted that the mother of Muhammad Saad Zulqarnain petitioner namely Mst. Shamshad Begum filed W.P. No,40338/2015 before the Lahore High Court, Lahore regarding the illegal detention of the said petitioner by the agencies. The said.petition was filed on 23.12.2015 and a Division Bench of this Court at the principal seat, on the date fixed i,e, 23.12.2015 directed the respondent of the said W.P. including the Incharge CTD, Punjab, Lahore to produce the alleged detenue Muhammad Saad Zulqarnain (petitioner) before the Court on 28.12.2015, thereafter, number of opportunities were granted by the Court on 25.01.2016, 11.02.2016, 01.03.2016 and 29.03.2016 regarding the recovery of the petitioner in the said case and ultimately as per request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the aforementioned petition alongwith all its annexures was directed to be transmitted to Respondent No, 2 of the said case (CCPO, Lahore),with the direction to treat the same as an application of the petitioner and proceed in accordance with the law. It is evident from the perusal of the record that the aforementioned W.P. No,40338/2015 was filed by the mother of Muhammad Saad Zulqarnain petitioner with the claim that the said petitioner was arrested by the agencies on the intervening night of 07/8.12.2015 at about 2:00 a.m. As the above mentioned writ petition regarding illegal detention and recovery of the above petitioner was filed on 23.12.2015 and the learned Division Bench also issued a direction for recovery of the said petitioner but later on the instant F.I.R. was lodged against the aforementioned petitioner on 07.04.2016, after about four months from the filing of aforementioned writ petition by the mother of the petitioner against the illegal detention of the said petitioner. Muhammad Asif, brother of Muhammad Azam petitioner also filed Habeas Petition No,433 of 2016 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Lahore on 17.03.2016, wherein learned Additional Sessions Judge Lahore directed Respondents No,1 to 3 of the said petition to produce the alleged detenue Muhammad Azam (petitioner) on 19.03.2016. The S.H.O. Police Station Counter Terrorism Department, Lahore submitted report that Muhammad Azam was neither arrested nor detained by the CTD, Lahore. The S.H.O. Police Station Baghbanpura, Lahore also submitted report on the same lines. Prima facie it appears that as the mother of Muhammad Saad Zulqarnain petitioner and brother of Muhammad Azam petitioner moved the aforementioned writ petitions regarding illegal detention of the said petitioners against the officials of CTD, Lahore and a prayer for registration of F.I.R. against the officials of C.T.D. Lahore for illegal confinement was also made in the petition filed by the aforementioned co-accused of the petitioners namely Dr. AaMer Saeed, therefore, in order to justify the arrest of the petitioners and their abovementioned co-accused, the instant F.1.R. has rnalafidely been lodged by the C.T.D. Multan on the behest of C.T.D. Lahore. As the principal accused has already been granted bail by this Court which order is still in the field, therefore, petitioners are also entitled to the relief of bail under the rule of consistency.
10. 6.In the light of above, both the petitions are allowed and petitioners Muhammad Azam and Muhammad Saad Zulqarnain are admitted to post arrest, bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,500,000/- (Rupees five hundred thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
11. 7.It is however clarified that the observations made in this order are tentative in nature and shall cause no prejudice to the case of either party at the time of final adjudication of the case before the learned trial Court.