Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1950 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mustafa Khan vs State Ss

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1950 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mustafa Khan VS State Ss. 196 & 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 124-A, 153-A, 500, 505, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Sedition, promoting enmity between different groups, defamation, public mischief, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, act of terrorism---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Allegations against the accused-petitioner were that he was delivering a speech inciting the people to revolt against the State---S.196, Cr.P.C., grants power to the Federal or Provincial Government to decide whether a person should or should not be tried, as the trial may embarrass the Government at home or abroad, so S.196, Cr.P.C., creates a clog on the taking of cognizance of a case by a Court, which cap can be removed only, if complaint provided under S.196, Cr.P.C., is lodged on the authorization of the concerned Government---In present case, admittedly no complaint from Federal or Provincial Government or Authorized Officer had been made---Section 7 of the Act of 1997 had also been cited in the FIR---Provisions of the Act of 1997 were part of the FIR; S.12 ibid deals with the jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court while S.19(3) of the Act of 1997 stipulates that Anti-Terrorism Court shall directly take cognizance of a case triable by such Court without the case being sent to it under S.190, Cr.P.C.---Section 32 of the Act of 1997 stipulates that the Act of 1997 has overriding effect---Thus, Anti-Terrorism Court can proceed with such cases irrespective of the bar contained in S.196, Cr. P.C., which provision would not in any way effect the taking of cognizance by the Anti-Terrorism Court in exercising power under S.19 of the Act of 1997 for offence falling in Chapter VI of P.P.C. without having approval of Government---Section 124-A, P.P.C., provides two types of punishments i.e. one of imprisonment for life and other of imprisonment which may extend to three years---Hence the Trial Court had to form opinion after considering the material brought on record in evidence as to whether in the circumstances of the case, it would be a case punishable with imprisonment of three years or life---Therefore, bail could be granted on the ground of further enquiry, as at bail stage it could not be definitely held that the case against the accused fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Tentative assessment of the material available on record showed that the present applicant was not the main accused who made alleged speech---Even the name of main accused was not mentioned in FIR---Only allegation against the applicant was that of raising slogans, however, the exact words of the alleged slogans were not mentioned in the FIR---Nothing was available on record to show if the prosecution was relying on any audio or video recording of the incident---Article 164 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, and S.27-B of the Act of 1997 provided the admissibility of such evidence secured through modern devices and electronic and forensic evidence---In the instant case, more than five months had passed, yet the Investigation Officer had not submitted final report under S.173, Cr.P.C., which by law he was required to submit after completing investigation in respect of cases triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court within thirty days as per S.19(2) of the Act of 1997---In such circumstances, accused could not be kept in jail for indefinite period---Bail application was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1950 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mustafa Khan vs State Ss — 2025 MLD 1950 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD