MUHAMMAD SHERAZ KIANI, J.--- The above captioned revision petition calls in question the validity and legality of the order passed by the learned Judge Ehtesab Court/Anti Terrorism Court, Mirpur on 03.06.2016, whereby, the learned Court below has confirmed the post-arrest bail, granted, to the petitioner, in the offences under Sections 147/149, 279/337-F(I-VI), 337-F(I) (IV), 337A(I) , and Section 6 (2) ATA.
2. Precise facts of the instant revision petition are that a case under the above sections was registered against the accused respondents, at Police Station Barnala, on 15,06.2016 upon the complaint of Lt. Muhammad Taseer Yousaf. It was stated that he was standing in Kot Jamel Bazar, When Mehran Car bearing No.625 KE came on the spot and hit at the right leg of the complainant and started beating and harassing the complainant. It was also stated that meanwhile, 3/4 persons came there and they also started quarrel with the complainant, whereupon, the complainant got an injury at his right hand, thumb and fingers. It was also stated that thereafter, the local shopkeepers released the parties. Upon this report, a case was registered against Idrees, Almas, Waleed, Yasir and Junaid. The accused respondents filed an application for post arrest bail before the Court of Judge, Anti Terrorism Court, and the learned Court below, after hearing the learned counsel for the accused-respondents herein and the . State Counsel, released the accused respondents on bail, vide order dated 03.06.2016, hence, the above titled revision petition.
3. Hafiz Fazal ur Rehman Dar, Advocate, the learned AAG, while reiterating the ground incorporated in the revision petition argued that the accused respondents were nominated in the FIR. They have committed a heinous offence. Their case comes within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497 of Cr.PC. The learned AAG further argued that the reasons given by the learned Court below are not in consonance with the principles, governing the bail matters, laid down by the superior Courts of the Country rather it is based on conjectures and surmises and against the law and fact.
He submitted that the accused-respondents had attacked upon an army officer, which also add the gravity of the offence.
4. Conversely, Raja Waseen Younas, Advocate, the learned counsel for the accused respondents submitted that the case against the accused -respondents is based upon a fabricated story. The complainant was in plain clothing and was not in uniform and he was not assaulted rather due to an accidental mistake, when the complainant was standing at Kot Jamel Bazar, he was not attentive towards the traffic, running close to him and the side mirror of the car touched/hit his right elbow and then the complainant started abusing the accused-respondents and gave a fist blow to the accused, Muhammad Idrees and in reply, the said respondent also slapped him. Then, the complainant started kicking upon the bonnet of the car. When the driver/respondent started the car and moved ahead, the complainant inflicted a fist blow on the back screen and thus the back screen of the vehicle got broken and the hand of the complainant was also got injured. No injury was caused by the accused-respondents. The learned counsel further submitted that later, it came into the knowledge of the accused-respondents that the complainant is an army officer and at the time of the incident it was not in their knowledge. The' accused-respondent were tortured by the Police on the behest of the complainant party. The learned counsel contended that the accused-respondents are respectable citizens of the State. They have no concern with any proscribed organization ,or terrorist group rather they belong to a political party of the State. He finally maintained that the accused -respondents are respectful to Pakistan Army from the core of their hearts and wrongly, without any evidence it was tried to level the accused/respondents as hardened, desperate and dangerous criminals, while applying Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, which has been deleted by the Police after thorough investigation. So, according to the version of the learned, counsel, it is case of further inquiry and the accused-respondents were admitted to bail in accordance with law and no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the contents of the pleadings and given my anxious thought to the controversy involved, therein.
6. A careful consideration of the file reveals that during the investigation, offences under sections 324 APC, and 6(2) of ATA were added against the accused-respondents but later on, after investigation, the offences contained in Section 6(2) ATA and 324 APC have been deleted by the Police for having not any evidence in relation to those offences and finally, after completion of evidence, challan has been submitted before the competent Court, in the offences under sections 337-F(1), 337-F(4), 337-G, 353, 279 and 34, A.P.C. According to the punishment provided for the offences mentioned above, the case of the accused-respondents does not come within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. When, the investigation has been completed and challan has been submitted before the trial Court, it means that they were no more required for investigation purpose and in such cases, bail is a rule and its refusal is an exception. The learned State Counsel could not point out any exceptional circumstances, particularly as after investigation, the Police has deleted the offences punishable under Section 324. APC and 6(2) of the ATA and application of Section 337 G, APC itself shows that it could have been an accidental incident. Section 337-G provides punishment for an offender, who causes injury, negligently in an accident and this offence is bailable and in a bailable offence, the bail can be claimed as a matter of right.
7. As far the offence under Section 353 of APC is concerned, it relates to a public servant, when he is assaulted or interfered in his official duties. It has not been alleged by the prosecution that at the time of occurrence, the complainant was in Army Uniform rather it appears from the record that he was in plain dress. So, it is a clear cut case of further inquiry and comes within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497 of the Cr.P.C. Relevant Provision of law is usefully reproduced, hereunder: "(2) If it appears to such officer or Court at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be, that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence, but that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, the accused shall, pending such inquiry, be released on bail, or, at the discretion of such officer or Court, on the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance as hereinafter provided."
8. It is also yet to be explained by the prosecution that after applying Section 337-G, how the other sections relating to the injuries have been applied against the accused-respondents. Even otherwise, in the light of the material, particularly, the medical report;, if it is presumed that the accused-respondents have committed the offence under Sections 337-F(I),337-F(IV) APC even then, the case of the accused-respondents does not come within the prohibition contained in section 497 Cr.P.C. Furthermore, in all the injury cases, the basic punishment provided in the law is of 'Arsh or Daman'. According to Section 337-N(II) of APC, the punishment of imprisonment can be awarded only to those offenders, who are hardened, desperate, dangerous and previously convicted criminal. So, it is yet to be established by the trial Court whether, it was an accidental incident or the accused, by knowingly; without any reason attacked upon the complainant; an army officer in a desperate manner. I have also gone through the impugned order. The learned Court below has given sound reasons in support of its 'decision/order. No illegality has been committed.
9. It has also been stated by the learned counsel for the accused-respondents that a compromise has been effected between the parties, however, he could not place before the Court any statement of the complainant in this regard, but it is mentioned in the diaries of Police that the compromise has been negotiated between the parties. It is hereby observed that is established principle of law that if the Court of competent jurisdiction has released an accused on bail, very strong and exceptional grounds are required to cancel the same. Reliance can be placed on the following cases:
1. PLD 1996 SC 241
2. 2014 SCR 900(sic).
3. 2014 PCr.LJ 1512 4: 2014 SCR 234(.4)
10. No exceptional grounds or circumstances have been alleged in the instant case. There is no allegation that the accused-respondents, after the occurrence have committed any other offence or they have misused the concession of bail or they are tampering or interfering with the prosecution evidence and in such circumstances, does not require any interference by this Court.
11. In light of what has been stated above, the instant revision petition fails to make out any case of interference by this Court , hence, stands dismissed.