Through instant petition, the petitioner namely Muhammad Irfan Tariq, seeks his release on post- arrest bail in case FIR No, 18 dated 06th June, 2017 offence under Sections 4 & 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 registered at Police Station, CTD Rawalpindi.
2. The precise allegations against the petitioner are that from his possession 670 grams explosive substance, 8 feet safety fuse wire and four non-electric detonators were recovered.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. As per allegations embodied in the FIR, the petitioner was arrested on 6th June, 2017 in pursuance to spy information when he was coming from IJP road. It is part of allegation that he is affiliated with proscribed organization.
5. Record reveals that Muhammad Adnan Tariq, brother of the petitioner, earlier filed W.P.No, 8063- HB of 2017 before learned Multan Bench of this Court for recovery of the petitioner. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 7th June, 2017 with the following observations: "Khadim Hussain Inspector, CTD Sahiwal while submitting report states that Irfan Tariq, the alleged detenue was not arrested by the CTD, Sahiwal and as per information, the alleged detenue has been arrested by the official of CTD Rawalpindi in case FIR No, 18, dated 06.06.2017 in respect of offences under Sections 4/5 ESA, 7-ATA registered at Police Station CTD Rawalpindi.
2. With this development, learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw this petition.
3. Dismissed as having been withdrawn.
6. In addition to above, this petition is also accompanying press clipping of daily "Duniya Lahore" and "Nae Baat" of 10th March, 2017, which shows the arrest of the petitioner by CTD, Sahiwal prior to the registration of instant case. There is no cavil that press clippings are per se inadmissible in evidence but filing of habeas corpus petition prior to the registration of instant case coupled with the press clippings creates doubt about the prosecution case.
7. We when confronted learned Prosecutor as to what material is available with prosecution to connect the petitioner with the proscribed organization, he is unable to highlight any such incriminating material. The involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence is, thus, not free from doubt and his case calls for further inquiry and probe as per contemplation of Section 497(2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
8. Law is well settled that when once case of an accused falls within the ambit of further inquiry, he becomes entitled to bail as a matter of right and not grace. Bail, in such an eventuality, cannot be withheld only on the ground that accused is charged with a heinous and serious offence. The petitioner is first offender and he is behind bars since his arrest. Reliance in this respect, if needed, can be made to "Muhammad Noman v. The State and another" (2017 SCM R 560).
9. For the foregoing reasons, we are inclined to a allow this petition. As a sequel thereof, the petitioner namely Muhammad Irfan Tariq is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing his bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.
10.Needless to observe that the observations made herein above are only tentative in their nature and are strictly confined to the extent of grant of instant bail.