Cri. Mise. No.223-8-2021 et / ORDER SHEET INTHE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. Crl. Misc, No.223-B-202 at Manzoot Kamboh, Advocate Vs. The Stare and Another Cr, Mise, No.216-B-2021 Asad Ullah Khan Vs. The State and Another Cri. Mise. No.228-B-2¢ Faiser Nawaz Vs. The State and Another S. No. of Date of) Order with signature of Judge and that order/ order/ of parties or counsel where necessary. proceedings y 85 Proceedings 21 M/s Sardar Muhammad Latif Khosa, Ch. Manzoor Ahmad Kamboh, Sardar Shahbaz Ali Khan Khosa, Muhammad Shoaib Shaheca, Syed Khawar Ameer Bukhar, Mr. Yahid Mahmood Raja, Mr. Sohail Akbar Chaudhry, Mr. Fareed Hussain Kaif, Hafiz Muhammad Asif Tamboli, Mr. Zahid Asif Chaudhry, Me. Muhammad Bilal, Mr. Atta Ullah Hakim Kundi, Barrister Suzain Khattak, gwefioc., Mr Muhammad — Wagas Malik, Mr. Muhammad Masroof Khan, Advocates for petitioners. tt Mr. Danyal Hassan and Mr. Majid Rashid, State Counsel ; 4, Mr Abdul Jabbar Khan, Inspeccor/1O putts gd ir ena as AAMER FAROOQ J. This order shall dispose of instant bail application as well as bail applications bearing Crl. Misc. No.216-B- 2021 and Cri. Misc. No.228-B-2021, as petitioners in all the referred petitions, seek bail after arrest in the same FIR.Cri, Misc. No.223-B-2021 etc. 2. The petitioners namely Liagat Manzoor Kamboh, Asad Ullah Khan and Faiser Nawaz, seck bail after arrestin case FIR No.99 dated 08.02.2021 under sections 506/452/440/427/395/353/342/341 /228/ 186/149/147 PPC and 7 ATA registered at PS. Ramna, Islamabad. 3. ‘The case of the prosecution, against the petitioners, is that on 08.02.2021 at about 9:30 am, a umber of lawyers left F-8 Katchery, Islamabad towards Islamabad High Court and at about 10:05 a.m., about 250 to 300 lawyers, including inter alia the aforementioned petitioners, blocked the Main Road of the High Court and forcibly entered the compound; they went towards Chief Justice’s Block and on their way, broke the windows of said Block and destroyed the plants; they encircled the Chief Justice Block, uttered unacceptable words, pelted the doors and building with stones and after entering the entered into the Chambers of aie? } Hon'ble Chief Justice and took him hostage; they also beat up representative of ARY no?" Channel and forcibly tried to snatch weapons ai police officials performing security duties; ne they threatened the staff, broke the windows ;¢ and also endangered the lives of staff by throwing gas cylinder used as fire extinguisher, The Judges of the High Court came for help of the Chief Justice of the Court but only succeeded to rescue him after a considerable period of time, during whichrl, Mise. No.223-B-2021 etc. the Hon’ble Chief Justice remained hostage. ‘The motive, for doing so, was demolition of yers chambers situated near 1-8 la the Courts. 4. ‘The petitioners applied for bail after arrest before Anti-Terrorism — Court-I, Islamabad, which were dismissed vide order dated 05.03.2021 (in case of Crl. Misc. No.223-B-2021) and order dated 08.03.2021 (in cases of Caf, Misc. No.216-B-2021 and Crl. Misc. No.228-B-2021); hence the petitions. 5, Sardar Muhammad Latif Khosa, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, appearing on behalf of petitioners, inter alia contended that catlier, in the same FIR, co-accused of petitioners, with similar roles, this Court granted bail vide order dated 01.03.2021 in Crl. Misc. No.129-B-2021. It was contended that on the principles of consistency, the petitioners are also entitled to the same concession, Tt was submitted — that investigation, to the extent of petitioners, nds concluded and they are no longer required for the same; that in the facts and anon cifcumstances, the case, against the petitioners, is one of further inquiry; that the “ot ,Palitioners are Members of District Bar Association Islamabad and one of them namely Liagat Manzoor Kamboh, is the Secre ; ceretary of District. Bar Association Islamabad. It was also submitted that Pettoners have long standing practice at th e Dar and fall within the parameters Provided r ni i Cri, Mise. No.223-B-2021 etc att order, it was observed as follows:- section 21-D of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for grant of concession of bail. 6. Learned State Counsel inter alia contended that there are eye-witnesses, who recorded their statements to the extent that petitioners were actually involved ia hurling of stones and incitement against the Hon’ble Chief Justice and also causing damage to the property. It was also submitted that in case of petitioner namely Liagat Manzoor Kambob, he also made a contemptuous specch 7. Arguments advanced by _ learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the documents, placed on record, examined with their able assistance. 8. As noted above, petitioners are implicated in the above mentioned FIR. ). ‘This Court, in another bail application filed by co-accused titled ‘Naveed Hayat Malik ctc. Vs. The State and ‘Another’ (Crl. Misc. No.129-B-2021), granted concession of bail to the petitioners vide order dated 01.03.2021. In the referred matter, this Court after discussing, “She law for grant of concession of bail under section 21-D of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, held that petitioners were entitled to {éGlncession of bail, In paragtaph-17 of said “17, The parameters, for grant of bail, are provided in section 21-D of the Act. Subsection (4), which includes the nature and seriousness of the offence, with which, the person is charged; the character, antecedents, associations and community ties of the person; the time which the person has already spent inMisc. No.223-8-2021 etc. custody and the time which he is likely to spend in custody if he is not admitted to bail; and the strength of the evidence of his having committed the offence”. 10. Likewise, in para-19, it was observed as follows:- “19, ‘The bail is a discretionary matter and the said discretion is to be exercised with caution and in accordance with law. The observations made in the cases in case tithed ‘Amjad Mustafa Malik Vs D.G. NAB etc.’ (W.P. No.769-2019) as well as ‘Khawaja Salman Rafique and another Vs. National Accountability Bureau through Chairman and others’ (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 456) are pertinent, as right to life and liberty is a fundamental right and arbitrary arrest or threat to arrest can seriously hamper said fundamental right. Likewise, observations of august Apex Court in the celebrated judgment reported as “Manzoot and 4-others Vs. The State’ (PLD 1972 Supreme Court 81), are apt and applicable even today. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- “It is important to remember that bail is not 10 be withbeld as s punishment. There is no legal or moral compulsion to keep people in jail merely™ on the allegation that they have committed afjences punishable with death or aro fe\ue Copy ait transportation, unless reasonable gs grounds appear to exist to disclose their “ complicity. The ultimate conviction and ’ 1 APR 2021 incarceration of a guilty person can ' repair the wrong caused by a mistaken & relief of interim bail granted to him, but Gane iacons sy Mt no salisfattory reparation can be offered ‘aiams to an innocent roan for bis unjustified incarceration at any stage of the case albeit his acquittal in the long run”. 11. ‘Though there are statements against the petitioners by the police officials to the effectMise. No.223-B-2021 etc that they were involved in the incident of 8 February, 2021, however, they are in judicial custody, as investigation to. their extent, stands concluded and are senior members of the bar. Nothing is to be recovered ftom the petitioners and their continuous incarceration shall not serve any purpose. 12. In view of above, instant applications for bail after arrest are allowed and petitioners namely Liagat Manzoor Kamboh, Asad Ullah Khan and Faiser Nawaz, are enlarged on bail after arrest. ia the aforementioned , case, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each, with one surety each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court 2) ¢ id / - pe = (MOHSIN’AKHT AI KAYANI) (AAMER FAROOQ) JUDGE JUDGE Yawn gptied "9 8 True Cop, oo 1 APR 2021 aati) 84 Qa A d i @