1. ' By our order, dated 26-10-1998, while sitting in Division Bench at Larkana we granted interim bail before arrest to the applicant. Subsequently, as per orders of Hon'ble Chief Justice, dated 23rd February, 1999 this bail application was again placed before us on 5-4-1999. Thereafter, it was being adjourned on number of dates and, after all, today learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned State counsel have argued their respective cases.
2. ' At the time of granting to the applicant interim bail before arrest, we required learned counsel for the applicant to keep himself prepared and render assistance to us on the point if the Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Act did not have power to grant pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel for the applicant has met this point by referring to section 7 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act to show that the Act (ibid). Excludes operation of section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure rendering it unavailable to the Special Court to grant bail before arrest. To substantiate his arguments further, he also referred to case- law reported as Wali Jan and another v. The State (1995 PCr.LJ 1170), Kaman alias Ghulam v. The State (PLD 1997 Karachi 4$4) and also another Shekil v. The State (PLD 1997 Karachi 172) and stated that this Court has unfettered jurisdiction to grant bail in like-cases. Learned State counsel has shared the views of learned counsel for the applicant and has stated in express terms that Special Court does not have jurisdiction to grant bail before arrest to the accused.
3. ' On merits learned counsel for the applicant has repeated the same facts as are sufficiently incorporated in our order, dated 26-10-1998. He has further argued that the applicant has been booked on account of enmity and there is no other evidence to link the applicant in the commission of crime except belated 164, Cr.P.C., statements recorded on 21st May, 1998 i,e,, about more than one month to allege that the applicant caused Lathi blow to the complainant, which, according to him, is not instrumental in causing death of those who are deceased. Learned State counsel has admitted that there is no other evidence except the one referred to by learned counsel for applicant. He has also admitted that 164, Cr.P.C., statement of P.W. Raja Khan, P.W. Shabbir Ahmed and P.W. Shahzedo were recorded after a month delay as pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant. He further submitted that medical certificate, however, does not indicate that any such alleged injury as caused to the complainant.
4. The applicant was granted bail on 26th October, 1998 and since then he continues to enjoy benefit of aforementioned orders. There is no allegation against him that he has at any time misused the concession disentitling him to enjoy the same. Since the name of the applicant finds no mention in F.I.R., and oral evidence and the medical evidence are at variance, we feel ourselves inclined to confirm the interim bail earlier granted to the applicant on same terms and conditions. Order is passed accordingly.