' Through the instant Criminal Miscellaneous bail after arrest is sought for the petitioners in case F.I.R. No,278, dated 14-9-1998 registered at Police Station Airport, Rawalpindi, under section 353/186/147/148/341/188, P. P.C. Read with section 16 of M.P.O., section 11-B of Arms Ordinance, 1965 and section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
2. The facts forming the basis of the F.I.R. Are that on 14-9-1998 Mr. Asif Ali Zardari had to appear in the High Court. He arrived at the High Court premises at 9-15 a.m. After he had entered the High Court premises, the main gate leading to the High Court premises was closed by the Police so as to avert the law and order situation at the hands of the people trying to enter the High Court premises. Immediately after Mr. Asif Ali Zardari entered the High Court premises, a Land Cruiser occupied by heavily armed men arrived right at the front of the main gate of the High Court and the armed men who were led by Imtiaz Ali alias Taji Khokhar alighted from the said vehicle. They started raising slogans against the police and started using filthy language. These persons were led by Imtiaz Ali alias Taji Khokhar who was exhorting his companions that they had come fully armed and anyone who would stop them from entering the High Court premises and would obstruct their way shall be done to death. The said persons under the leadership of Imtiaz Ahmad alias Taji Khokhar aforementioned attacked the main gate of the High Court and tried to enter the High Court premises forcibly by scaling over the main gate. The police which was on duty at the gate tried to stop them from doing so but they started resisting the Police. In the process they started pelting stones on the Police contingent posted at the gate and blocked the main road which caused serious obstructions in the free movement of the traffic on the road. Imtiaz Ali alias Taji Khokhar aforementioned instigated the infuriated demonstrators and said that his companions were prepared to do anything if they were stopped. Realizing extreme danger to the High Court premises Imtiaz Ali alias Taji Khokhar alongwith Zafar, Haji Khaista Baz, Zaman Khan, Fazal Shah, Rab Nawaz, Kamran Khan and Javaid lqbal were taken into custody by the police present at the site whereas their companions who were heavily armed ran away from the site.
Having been arrested, a case under the aforementioned sections was registered against them.
They applied for bail after arrest to the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Activities, Rawalpindi which was rejected by him vide his order, dated 2-10-1998. Hence this petition before this Court.
3. Mr. Fayyaz Ahmad Khawaja, learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in support of the bail application urged the following contentions for admitting the petitioners to post arrest bail:--
(i) that the petitioners were peaceful citizens of Pakistan. They wanted to see their Leader Mr. Asif Ali Zardari who was a husband of ex-Prime Minister of Pakistan. As citizens they had a right to have free access to the High Court premises;
(ii) that the petitioners did not act in a manner prejudicial to the integrity of the country nor did they raise any slogans or commit any violence as alleged against them in the F.I.R.;
(iii) that the case registered against the petitioners at the instance of the Police was a sheer concoction and the petitioners had been falsely implicated in the case by the police to show their performance;
(iv) that in the encounter that occurred between the persons who had gathered at the site and the police, no injury was sustained by any member of the police or anyone else;
(v) that although it was a daylight occurrence having taken place at a public place and in front of the High Court gate yet no independent witness has been cited in the F.I.R.;
(vi) that the case against the petitioners does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. Malik Muhammad Kabir, learned Assistant Advocate-General Punjab appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners and controverted the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners. He maintained that the petitioners were clearly named in the F.I.R. And a specific role was assigned to them, besides the fact that they were apprehended right on the spot. The stones which were pelted on the police contingent posted at the site were taken into custody. A.C., Sadar Sub-Division, Amjad Saeed, Area Magistrate Civil Lines, Muhammad Zaraat Kayani, D.S.P. Civil Lines, Akhtar Hayat S.P. Security, District Rawalpindi, Maqsood Ahmad, A.S.I. Police Station Airport and Ghazanfar Ali, LHC were eye-witnesses of the occurrence whose statements had been recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. The learned Law Officer maintained that the persons cited as eye-witnesses were Government officials and the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to attribute any mala fides to them for having deposed falsely against the petitioners. Further submission of the learned Law Officer was that the High Court had issued passes for entry into High Court premises. However, on 31-8-1998 all such passes issued by the Additional Registrar of the High Court had been cancelled and it was ordered by the Additional Registrar that on every hearing of Ehtesab cases fresh passes for each date shall be issued under his signatures. The petitioners who were trying to force their entry into High Court premises were not in possession of passes issued by the Additional Registrar; that though some of the offences alleged against the petitioners were bailable yet the offence under section 11-B of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, section 16 of the M.P.O. And section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Ail, 1997 were non- bailable; that although the non-bailable offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Yet this circumstance did not clothe the petitioners with a right to claim bail as a matter of right. Finally the learned Law Officer submitted that the occurrence had taken place at the premises of the High Court which by itself made the occurrence very serious and if not checked it would andanger the safety and the security of the Court premises besides lowering its dignity in the eyes of the public.
4-A. We have considered and evaluated the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that most of the offences alleged against the petitioners were bailable and those which were non-bailable did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Placing reliance in this behalf on Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC page 34), learned counsel for the petitioners maintained that as per the law settled in the reported case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court grant of bail in cases not falling within the prohibitory clause was a rule and refusal of the same was an exception. Having given our anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners based on the aforestated case-law, we are constrained to observe that the learned counsel for the petitioners has rather oversimplified the gravity of the offence alleged against the petitioners. The petitioners knowing full well that they were not in possession of the passes issued by the High Court had no right to enter the High Court premises, tried to force their way into the High Court. On being stopped to do so, by the Police contingent posted at the main gate they started pelting stones on the police besides trying to scale over the main gate in their attempt to enter the High Court premises. What the petitioners and the other members of the unlawful assembly which had gathered at the site in the prosecution of their common object tried to do was fraught with serious consequences. It is the duty of the law enforcing agencies to obey the orders of the High Court and to regulate the entry into the High Court premises in accordance with such orders. Nobody could claim unto himself undeniable right to force his entry into the High Court premises the contrary orders of the High Court notwithstanding. In view of what happened a few days ago in the Court room of this very High Court during the hearing of the Ehtsab case agianst Mr. Asif Ali Zardari and at the Principal Seat of this Court at Lahore, the present occurrence cannot be treated as an isolated act. The aforestated events and the present one appear to be conscious efforts aimed at eroding the authority and the dignity of the Court. It is plain that if the system has to be preserved, the tendency at work behind such occurrences has to be curbed within an iron hand. When viewed in this perspective the offences alleged against the petitioners become very serious. If the Courts are rendered insecure or their authority and the dignity jeopardised in a manner such as this, nobody can ensure the smooth flow of water in this fountain of justice which the High Court is. Learned counsel for the petitioners took exception to the applicability of section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, to the facts of the case alleged against the petitioners on the ground that the same was not made out.
We are afraid the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in this behalf is not well- founded. By alighting at the main entrance of the High Court armed to the teeth, waiving arms in the air, raising slogans, pelting stones on the Police Agencies and threatening to do away with any one trying to obstruct them and to stop them from entering into the High Court premises, if did not amount to striking terror by and at the instance of the petitioners and the other members of the unlawful assembly, we are afraid what else it could be. The petitioners as rightly pointed out by the learned Law Officer were clearly identified in the F.I.R. And were apprehended right on the spot.
Though their companions who were heavily armed made good their escape from the site by running away yet the petitioners who were also members of the same unlawful assembly of which were those who fled away cannot escape their individual and vicarious liability. True it is, that the case alleged against the petitioners does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Yet this circumstance cannot clothe them with an absolute right to claim to be admitted to bail. Reliance in this behalf can be placed on Imtiaz Ahmad and others v. The State (PLD 1997 SC page 545) and Muhammad Afzal and others v. The State (1997 SCMR page 278). Each criminal case is peculiar by its own facts and one does not constitute a binding precedent for the other.
Commission of an offence against the authority and the dignity of the Principal Court of the Province is bound to lower its dignity besides shattering the confidence of the people in the authority of the Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out during the course of his arguments any mala fide on the part of the Police and the local administration to falsely implicate the petitioners in the case.
6. Before parting with this order we place on record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered to us by the learned counsel for the petitoners Mr. M. Fayyaz Ahmad Khawaja as also the learned Law Officer Malik Muhammad Kabir.
7. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, we do not feel persuaded to I D accept the instant bail application and we accordingly dismiss the same.