ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH
AT KARACHI
Criminal
Bail Application No.387 of 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE(S) OF
JUDGE(S)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Justice
Naimatullah Phulpoto
Mr. Justice Shaukat Ali Memon
1)
For orders on office objection and reply
at “A”
2)
For hearing
--------------
05.05.2015
Mr. Umar Hayyat
Sindhu, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. Zafar
Ahmed Khan, Additional P.G. Sindh
---------------------------------------------------------
NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.- Applicant/accused
Abdul Hadi seeks post arrest bail in Crime No.60/2015, registered at P.S. Clifton, Karachi South under
Section 11-W of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as
disclosed in F.I.R. are that on 30.01.2015, SIP
Shafiq Tanveer left the police station along with his
subordinate staff, when the police party reached at main gate Osman Ghani Masjid, Clifton, Karachi, it is alleged that present
accused was standing at the door of the Masjid and he was distributing
pamphlets. ASI Shafiq Tanveer
read the pamphlet, it contained material against the
policies of the Government and the Law Enforcing Agencies. On inquiry accused
disclosed his name as Abdul Hadi son of Iqbal Ahmed.
He belongs to Hizbul Tahreer
organization. He was arrested. 109 pamphlets were recovered from him. Case was
registered against the accused under the above referred section and after usual
investigation challan was submitted against him in the concerned Anti-Terrorism
Court at Karachi.
3. Bail application was moved on behalf of
the applicant/accused but the same was rejected by the learned Judge,
Anti-Terrorism Court-III, Karachi by order dated 26.03.2015. Thereafter,
applicant/accused approached this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused
mainly contended that except pamphlets no evidence is available on record
against the applicant/accused to connect him in this crime. No private person
has been examined by the I.O. in the case. It is
argued that alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of
section 497 Cr.PC. In support of his contentions, reliance is placed upon the unreported
order passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.5066-B
of 2011 dated 16.05.2011.
5. Learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh argued that pamphlets
have been recovered from the possession of the applicant/accused, which
contained material against the sovereignty of the State and the Law Enforcing
Agencies. He has opposed the bail application.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the
parties, we have perused the record.
7. Section
11-W of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 reads as under:-
11-W. Printing,
publishing, or disseminating any material to incite hatred or giving projection
to any person convicted for a terrorist act or any prescribed organization or
an organization placed under observation or anyone concerned in terrorism. (1)
A person commits an offence if he prints, publishes or disseminates any
material, whether by audio or video-cassettes or by written, photographic,
electronic, digital, wall-chalking or any method which incites religious,
sectarian or ethnic hatred or gives projection to any person convicted for a
terrorist act, or any person or organization concerned in terrorism or any
person organization or an organization placed under observation:
Provided that a factual news report, made in good faith, shall not be construed to mean “projection”
for the purposes of this section.
2) Any
person guilty of an offence under sub-section (1) shall be liable by way of
summary procedure, on conviction, to a maximum term of six months imprisonment
and a fine.
8. So far as there is not a single iota of
evidence on the police file to connect the applicant/accused with the
prescribed organization. At the most, allegation against the applicant/accused
is that pamphlets were recovered from him but there is nothing to show that
either the police party saw the accused while distributing such material or
even heard conversation of the accused which could establish his link with such
prescribed organization. No private person has been examined by the I.O. to satisfy the Court that accused was actually
distributing the pamphlets, to incite hatred or giving projection to any person
convicted for a terrorist act or any prescribed organization. It is argued that
accused is a student and police has challaned him in
a false case. In the given circumstances, prima facie, applicability of Section
11-W of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 against the applicant/accused makes his
case open to further inquiry. Even otherwise, offence with which the accused is
charged is not covered by the prohibitory clause. As such, applicant/accused is
admitted to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five
Thousand only) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
trial Court.
9. Needless to mention here that the
observations are tentative in nature and the trial Court shall not be
influenced while deciding the case on merits.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Gulsher/PA