Saif Ur Rehman Vs Federation of Pakistan

Judgment Sheet

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

ABBOTTABAD BENCH

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Criminal Appeal No. 165-A/2024

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing...................21.08.2025............

Petitioner (Saif-ur-Rehman) By Mr. Atif Ali Jadoon, Advocate.

Respondents. (Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Interior & others) By Mr. Aamir Khan, Assistant Advocate General.

SADIQ ALI, J.- Appellant, Saif ur Rehman has filed instant appeal under Section 11EE (3-A) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 against the decision of District Intelligence Coordination Committee (DICC) dated 16.09.2024, whereby the review petition filed by the appellant for removal of his name from Schedule-IV per notification dated 31.10.2023, was refused. Appellant has sought the following relief:-

“On acceptance of the instant appeal, the impugned decision dated 16.09.2024 of District Intelligence Coordination Committee (DICC) along with notification dated 31.10.2023 may kindly be set-aside and name of appellant may graciously be ordered to be removed from Schedule-IV and respondents may be directed to unblock the CNIC and

Passport of appellant and also the accounts of appellant which have been freeze in consequence of placing his name in Schedule-IV. Any other relief deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may also be granted.”

2.Succinctly stated facts of the case are that the respondents had placed the appellant in the list of Schedule-IV, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, since 2011. The appellant earlier approached this Court through Appeal No. 287-A/2023 during pendency whereof, he came to know that through notification dated 31.10.2023, his name was again retained in the Schedule-IV, thus his earlier appeal was disposed of in terms that the appellant may file review petition against the notification dated 31.10.2023. The appellant approached the respondents by filing review petition, which was dismissed vide the impugned order, hence the instant appeal.

3.We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

4.Prior to determining the validity of the inclusion of the name of the appellant in the 4th Schedule for a period exceeding three years, it

would be advantageous to reproduce Section 11- EE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for ready reference:-

“11-EE, Security for good behavior.---(1) Whenever the Federal or Provincial Government or an information received from any source that any person is an activist, office-bearer of an associate of an organization kept under observation under section under section 11-D or prescribed under section 11-E, or in any way concerned or suspect to be concerned with such organization or affiliated with any group or organization suspected to be involved in terrorism or sectarianism, such Government may notify the name of such person or persons in a list entered in the Fourth Schedule”.

(2)Where a person’s name is listed in the Fourth Schedule, the Federal or Provincial Government, as the case may be, without prejudice to any other action which may lie against such person under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, may take

following actions and exercise following powers, namely:-

(a)require such person to execute a bond with one or more sureties to the satisfaction of the District Police Officer in the territorial limits of which the said person ordinarily resides, or carries on business for his good behavior and not to involve in any act of terrorism or in any manner advance the objectives of the organization referred to in subsection (1) for such period not exceeding three years and in such amount as may be specified”.

A bare perusal of the quoted provisions of Section 11-EE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, make it abundantly clear that there are certain pre- requisites for inclusion of the name of a person in a list, prepared according to 4th Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, e.g. concrete material and cogent reason, prima facie established that the appellant is an activist, office bearer or an association of proscribed organization, or an organization suspected to be involved in terrorism or sectarianism. Secondly, the material or information, placed before the concerned

Government, should be of such nature, which could satisfy a reasonable person for making the necessary entry in the 4th Schedule. The foremost requirement is that the competent authority must prove the legality of the order. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of “Nayyar Abbas Jaffari Vs. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Home & Tribal Affairs

Department and 4 others” reported as 2019 PCr.L.J 941 and Ghazanfar Kazmi’s case reported as PLD 2017 Peshawar 105.

5.Perusal of the record reveals that vide notification dated 31.10.2023, the name of the appellant was retained in Schedule-4 of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997, by the Home Department.

Despite lapse of long fourteen (14) years, nothing incriminating material could be brought by the respondents to show any reasonable ground on the basis whereof, the respondents have recommended retention of name of the appellant in Schedule-IV.

The sole ground on the basis whereof the respondents have retained the name of the appellant in Schedule-IV is that he was charged in criminal case registered vide FIR No. 336 dated

27.03.2012 under Section 341/147/149 PPC of Police Station Cantt: Abbottabad as well as case FIR No. 1259 dated 27.11.2015 under Section 153A PPC of Police Station Cantt. Abbottabad.

On the preceding date, learned AAG when asked about the fate of said cases, he sought time to get details from the concerned quarters. Today, learned AAG informed the Court that said cases are still under investigation. Surprisingly, the cases registered in the year 2012 and 2015 have still been kept by the respondents under investigation and solely on the basis of said cases, the appellant’s name has been retained in the Schedule-IV. On such flimsy grounds, retaining his name in the 4th Schedule for an indefinite period is not only against the relevant provision of law, but also a flagrant violation of the inalienable right of citizen to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law, as enshrined in Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

6.In view of the above, this petition is allowed, the impugned notifications are set-aside with direction to the respondents to delete the name of the appellant from the 4th Schedule of

Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 forthwith. The quarter concerned is also directed to unblock his CNIC, unfreeze his Bank Account/s with intimation to Additional Registrar of this Court.

Announced:

Sd/J U D G E S

Tufail./*

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sadiq Ali, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aurangzeb.