' Akrampoor, accused/petitioner, in case F.I.R. No, 139, dated 25-7-1994 of Police Station, Domail District Bannu, seeks bail after arrest refused to him by Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Bannu on 30-11-1994 under the charge of attempted murder as defined by section 324 of the P.P.C.
2. The matter is dealt with by the Special Court because the Klashnikov is said to have been used in the occurrence. Pir Liaqat All Shah, learned counsel for the complainant has taken the stance that the provisions of section 497, Cr.P.C., as such, are not applicable to the proceedings the cognizance whereof is to be taken by the Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 and that the latter being a special law, it has its own provisions concerning bail under section 5-A(8) under which no person can be released on bail if he is reasonably connected with the commission of a scheduled offence. Although the matter is already dealt with by our own High Court in Muhammad All Khan v. The State PLD 1991 Pesh. 66, but still one can have a look into the facts of the present case and see as to whether the circumstances exist warranting release of the petitioner on bail. If a law is specifically made harsh to check a specific nature of crimes, the principles concerning the proof thereof require to be equally stringent. In the instant case, the petitioner is charged for the attempted murder defined under section 324 of the P.P.C. Which also rays down that in case hurt is caused during such attempt, the accused shall be punished for the hurt caused. The words of the section do not go to lay down that he shall be punished also for the hurt caused.
3. The medical report in the instant case would suggest that neither the injury extended to body- cavity nor it caused any fracture of the bone nor any impairment, temporary or permanent, of any organ of the body and hence, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner it was only a "Ghayr-Jaifah" falling under the category of "Mutalahimah". Whether it is so or not, would depend upon the statement of doctor as and when he enters into the witness-box, but at this stage the learned counsel for the complainant and the State could not describe the injury in a way better than the above. Thus, at this stage the petitioner is entitled to lenient treatment.
4. The provisions of a Special Law should not be always taken against an accused so stringently so as to bring him down to the category of a subject rather than a citizen who, without being a terrorist, might have acted or reacted in response to the strong and normal impulses of his own motives and enmities, subjectively justified. A special law can no doubt be enacted to provide certain special behaviors towards certain accused as it was in case of Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, but, that law requires to be applied as a whole. No pick and choose can be allowed for the benefit of the prosecution on the one hand and detriment of the accused on the other. If the law contains certain special attitudes towards the bail on the one hand, it also contains some specific provisions that imperatively provide for the submission of challan within a period of fourteen days and for the conduct of trial in a speedy manner with day-to-day hearing. If all these provision seven if stringent, are applied together and at one time, there is a strong likelihood of final decision of the case even before the accused could feel to be released on bail. If the principle is attracted to the present case, one observes that no challan has even been submitted before the Court much less the commencement or the conclusion of trial despite the passage of almost six months after ; the occurrence.
5. In the circumstances the petitioner is directed to be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bond in a sum of Rs,50,000 with two local reliable and resourceful sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, District Bannu.