1. ' MUHAMMAD ASLAM ARAIN, J.--- Applicants Shabbir Ahmed, Azim Khan, Zahid, Shakeel Ahmed, Muhammad Akbar, Rasheed, Imran and Muhammad Tayyab are being tried by the Special Court No,3 (S.TA.), Karachi for offence under sections 147, 148, 149 and 435, P.P.C., being outcome of F.I.R.
2. No,47 of 1994 registered at Police Station Korangi on 31-11994. Bail applications moved on behalf of these applicants are rejected by the learned trial Court and the applicants through these applications have approached this Court for bail. Since the applicants are accused in the same crime and the allegations against them are also similar, these applications are being disposed of by single order.
3. ' One Mehmood who lodged F.I.R. Stated that he was driver of a Coach No,PE-3100 owned by one Khawajuddin. On the date of incident at about 9-30 a.m. He was carrying passengers in his coach and while it reached Korangi No,3, he was stopped by about 30 to 35 boys who directed the passengers to come down. Thereafter, the miscreants set ablaze the said coach.
4. ' We have heard the learned Advocates for the applicants and the A.A.-G. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that after the arrest of the applicants on 31-1-1994, no identification test was held through the complainant or the conductor of the coach, that four absconding accused namely Nadeem, Agha Safdar, Nasir Chingari and Fareed were the persons responsible for having set fire to the coach and the applicants herein are neither named in the F.I.R. Nor any specific role is attributed to them. It is also argued that the two material witnesses Gohar and Sakhi Ahmed had named the four absconding accused but have not stated in their police statements anything against these applicants. The last contention raised by the learned counsel is that offence under section 435, P.P.C. Could not be tried by the Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorists Activities (Special Courts) Act of 1975, unless it is shown that any explosive substance, mineral oil or any product of mineral oil is used during the commission of the offence. Since there is no such allegation, the offence would not be triable by the Special Court. For applicant Muhammad Tayyab, it is further argued that he a minor being below 15 years of age and on that ground he is entitled to bail. In support of various contentions raised by the learned Advocates, reliance is placed on Noor Samand and others v. State 1992 PCr.LJ 2246, Riaz Ahmed v. State 1992 PCr.LJ 2248 and Muhammad Rafi v. State 1992 PCr.LJ 2399.
5. ' Bail applications are vehemently opposed by learned A.A.-G. It is contended by him that within fifteen minutes of the registration of F.I.R., the applicants were arrested in presence of the complainant who identified them all and there was no need for holding of an identification parade.
6. It is also contended that in his further statement recorded on the same day, the complainant has stated that the culprits used mineral oil for setting the coach ablaze. It is next contended that under subsection (8) of section 5-A of the S.TA. (Special Courts) Act, 1975, it is provided that an accused shall not be released on bail if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of the scheduled offence. Because the facts of the case indicate that the applicants are guilty of an offence covered by the Schedule, bail applications may be dismissed.
7. We have considered the above contentions of the learned Advocates and perused the orders of the learned trial Court. It is not disputed that the applicants were arrested within about fifteen minutes of the registration of F.I.R. No animus is shown against the complainant or against the Investigating Officer for the false involvement of the applicants. There are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicants are guilty of scheduled offence. The case of applicant Muhammad Tayyab who is a minor and below 15 years of age, requires consideration and we are inclined to grant him bail. Applicant Muhammad Tayyab shall be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. The bail applications of all other applicants are dismissed. The learned trial Court is directed to examine the complainant within a period of two months from today and, thereafter the applicants shall be at liberty to repeat the bail application before the trial Court if so advised.