MUHAMMAD AZEEM S/O RAJA MUHAMMAD SALEEM (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)

'-.t-i"^. + S *q 67e CiiRTIFICATL ()i' TL LUUI\ r rlr rwvr14

llt S',,/ AaA att aq, tt C 5'( )at l/

SINDI-I HI6}I COURT

stltotL ol Il anch, lD.u.

Cotn --ia :( fiit -c.-Z-,f i{..;- V I . xL^

"4h 6 /,,'$",,.' AL (l^t' Dates of ltearing:. l4 -OS- 2020 Decidctl on tt 14 - O f -2ozc)

(u)Judgn:ent approvcd fcrr Ycs reporting. M-

CEJRTIFICATB

Certiliccl tl)tit the jtl(lgn)ent '/Orrlcr is.basccl upon <-rr cnungiat's. a.princip'lc nf fo*-iia".ii., r quisti[n oi taiv- * tricl is oI fiist inrprcssion /distingrrishcs /. ovcr-rLtlcs/ r',:ve rses /t x 1>lains a pr,:vicus decision lstrikc out whichevcr is not applicable

I'IO]'E:-(i) This slip is only to trc tscd whcn some actioll is to bc taken, (ii) If thc slip is usc<!, the llcader must at(ach it to thc top of lhe 0rst pagc of the iudgment.

(iiil Rerdcr nrust ask the Judge writirlS thc Judgrnent whctbcr tbc Judgnrent is approvrrd :ior reporting, (ivj l'hosc dircctions wtrich arc not to be used should be deletcd' llGP., I(ar --L (iii) 1459-5,000-6-93--T S.S

Y

e7q

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH

AT KARACHI

L/

Special cr,r'nr, /of,ojr, *O D-( t2014.

I i Muhammad Azeem .. , ,-r S/O Raja Muhammad Saleem, Muslim, Adult, R/O House No.K-1 2, Labour Square, iNew Gu lshan-e-Rasheeda bad, Karachi, at present

G:*' .1..----...

ooo"',rll 6 \ confined in Central Jail karachi t

VERSUS

The State Respondent.

a\ F.l.R. No.43'll2013 uls 385-386/3241427 l35f134 P.P.C t; \\ R/YV Section 7 ATA 1997 itt P.S. SITE-B Karachi

APP EAL U NDEBSECIISN2E 9E

ANTI-TERRORISM ACT. 1997

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 30.06.2014 passed [:y the learned Court of Vth t Anti-Terrorism Court Karachi in Special Case No.256/2013 the

I

appellant preferred this appeal before this Hon'ble Court on the consideration of following facts and grounds:-

Y

The certified copy of impugned judgment dated 30.06.2013 is attached herewith and marked as Annexure "A".

I

t

I

Contd. ....... P/2.

rF

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH

AT KARACHI

k/ lt Special Crimtnat / ppeal NO.D- 12014

Muhammad Azeem (' S/O Raja Muhammad Saleem, Muslim, Adult, R/O House No.K-12, Labour Square, New Gulshan-e-Rasheedabad, Karachi, at present confined in Central Jail -zTcr Karachi Appellant.

VERSUS

The State . Respondent.

F.l.R. No.43212013 u/s 23 (1) (A) ATA 1ee7 P.S. SITE-B Karachi f-

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 25 OF

ANI-rERg@992- .( Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 30.06.2014 passed by the learned Court of Vth Anti-Terrorism Court Karachi in Special Case No.25712013 the appellant preferred this appeal before this Hon'ble Court on the consideration of following facts and grounds:-

Y I

The certified copy of impugned judgment dated 30.06.2013 is attached herewith and marked as Annexure "A".

Contd Pt2

I

e

6'7L

IN THE HIGH COUTIT OI; SINDH AT KARACHI

kt- Cr. SRecia/Appr:al .qL of20l4

yed Raza Shah s/o Syed Gulzar.Shah, o \ L- \ r.l

\ Attar.rr Rehman s/o Faza l-u r-Rehnr an

3.Fareed alias Agha Jan sio Jumma Khan AI"s \ilu'" All Muslirns. aclults, residents olKaLachi Presently conflued in Central prison Karachi.. . Appellants )uLl \'!'r i ll S

Thr: State I(e-spondent

FII( No.43 l/201 3 LJls 3 85/-lti6/32 4/ 427 /3 53 /34 Pt C IL/rv Sec.7 r\.T.A. 1997 P.S. SITfi-Il. Karachil

CI{. SPtrCIAt. APPirn L I jNt)Lilt sEClloN 2 -5 otr I'HE,,\N't' I-'l'lrltllOItl:iNi ACI' I 9 97 Being aggrieved by arrd dis-satisfiecl with the impugned

L

Ila Judgment of conviction dated: 30'h June, 2014 passcd by the Iearned Anti-Terrorism Courl No.V, Klrachi in Special Case )io.256l2013, (titled as: Starc ...vcrsus .,.Muhammad Azeem ancl others), whereby convicting tire appellants (accused persons) under section 7(h) of A.T.A. 1997 anC sentenccd rhcllt to suffer It.I. for leven ycars and fine ol Rs.25,0()0/- each ar-rcl in default of payrncnt of 'ine to further undergo S.l. fcr six monthri.The benefit of Section -:Sl-B CI'.P.C. was given kr lhe Accuscd Persons howevcr., two rppellants namely Sy,ed Raza Sh rh and Attaul Rehnran rverr acquitted

6+'L*r {s'-}f (.77

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF S INDH KARACHI

Spl. Cr. Anti-Terrorism Appeal No'44 of 2014 Spl. Cr. Anti-Terrorism Appeal No'45 of 2O14 Spl. Cr. Anti-Terrorism Appeal No.56 of 2O14 f Date Order with Sign ature of Judge l

For hearing of main case

14.o5.2020.

Mr. Nasaruilah Malik, Advocate for appellants Mohammad Azeem, Syed Raza Shah and Attaur Rahman Haji Habibullah Ghaffar, Advocate for the Surety' Mr. Mohammad Iqbal Awan, Deputy Prosecutor General.

Mohammad Karln Kho,n Agha, J. In Criminal ATA No.56 of 2O14 appellant Fareed alias Agha Jan son of Juma Khan vide order dated 26.Oa.2O16 was released on bail pending final decision on his appeal in the sum of Rs.2,O0,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs). Vide order dated O3.O4'2O17 such surety was reduced to the amount of Rs.1,0O,OOO/- (Rupees One Lac). Munir Ahmed stood surety for Fareed alias Agha Jan to { ensure his attendance before this Court when his matter was fixed for hearing. However, as soon as appellant Fareed rvas released from jail on bail he did not attend a single hearing of this Court from 05.10.2017 till date which is a period of nearly two and a half years.

2.On 17.08.2017 due to absence of appellant Fareed notice under Section 514 Cr.P.C. was issued to the surety. On OA.O9.2O|7 BWs were issued in the sum of Rs.1,OO,OOO/- against the appellant Fareed and notice was again ordered to be issued to the surety on 16.10.2017. On 18.09.2017 Munir Ahmed surety of appellant Fareed was present but did not produce the appellant Fareed which was his obligation' On 16.10.2017 NBWs were issued for the arrest of appellant Fareed and notice was given to the surety under Section 514 Cr.P.C. From 23.70.2017 till date the order sheets reveal that NBWs have not been executed against the appellant Fareed who remained absent from the Court till date and that from time to time notices were given to the surety Munir Ahmed r

e70

under Section 514 Cr.P.C who neither produced the surety nor gave a satisfactory explanation as to why his surety should not be forfeited.

3.It is absolutely apparent that the appellant Fareed alias Agha Jan son of Juma Khan has absconded and breached the terms of his bail and has no intention of appearing before this Court when his appeal is heard and thus for a continuous period of two and a half years has misused and abused his release on bail.

4.Under these circumstances his bail is withdrawn / cancelled and he is ordered to be arrested by SHO PS SITE-B Karachi who shal1 arrest the appellant Fareed alias Agha Jan son of Juma Khan and return him to prison custody at Karachi Central Jail to serve out his remaining sentence.

5.A copy of this order shall be sent by facsimile to I.G. Police Sindh and SHO, PS SITE-B Kalachi for compliance. SHO, PS SITE-B Karachi shall be in attendance before this .( Court on the next date of hearing along with his compliance report.

6.The surety has treen given countless opportunities to produce the appellant Fareed before this Court as is his obligation and has been served notice under Section 514 Cr.P.C. as to why his surety should not be forfeited. Today learned counsel for the surety submits that surety is a poor man and the court should act with leniencv and not forfeit his surety.

7.we have heard learned counsel for the surety and considered the record.

B. When this court grants bail it is given subject to furnishing solvent surety and it is the role of the surety to ensure that the person granted bail is produced before this court on each and every date of hearing. This is a very serious obligation/ responsibility to be undertaken by a surety and is not to be taken lightly. In our view to show ieniency

'a

would encourage people to act as surety \4rho had no serious or genuine interest in ensuring the person granted bail appeared before the court knowing that there would be no consequences for them if the person on bail absconded. In this respect reliance is placed on Ghulam Dastagir v State (PLD 2011 SC 116) which held as under at page118 para 11 & l2 which are set out below for ease of reference: "11. The case-lau relied upon bg the leorned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable ort facts of the present case. The present latu and order situcttion preuailing in the countrg and the d.eteioration of the moral ualues in the societg in the past 3/4 decqdes requires that provlsions of sectlon 574, Cr.P,C, should not onlg be adhered to strlctlg but ln case of non-appearance of the accused, d suretg should be held llable for forfelture oJ full amount of lts bonds for the rec,sor,, that tnoral aalues of our socletg as taere itt the slxtles are dljferent todag.

12.Where a Court allows bail to an accused person tuith the condition that he shall furnish bail bortds irt ct particular arnount through sureties and if such sureties fail to produce the ctccused when required bg the Ccturt, ang lenlencg shoun ln case of Jatlure o;f the suretg in production of an accused utould tantdmount 1 to uiolating the lau and would encourage the non- productlon of accused utho was alloued ball on the basls of bonds furnlshed bg the suretles,"

9.Based on the particular facts and circumstances of this case we do not consider that there is any room for any leniency to be shown and as such the surety of Munir Ahmed, who has been given countless opportunities to bring the appellant before this Court but has failed to do so, is hereby forfeited.

10.A copy of this order shall also be sent to the Nazir of this Court for compliance who shall submit his compliance report within 03 days of the date of this order.

1i. We have just received jail rolls in respect of appellant Syed Raza and Mohammad Azeem which are taken on record. Superintendent, Central Prison, Karachi shall send by facsimile during course of the day the jail roll of Attaur Rahman son of Fazalur Rahman.

69c

12.At the request of learned counsel for the aJoresaid appellants this matter shall come up for hearing tomorrow i'e' 15.O5.2O20 at O8:3O am. Learned counsel is a"r'are that if he or any appeliants on bail fails to attend this Court to submit his arguments this Court may pass appropriate orders.

I

13.A copy of this order shall be sent to Superintendent, Central Prison, Karachi for compliance.

( ^'ll, JU E 1,tlrl t.

JUDEE