[Suppression Of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975]
[Bail, Jurisdiction, etc.]
Transfer of case by one Special Court Judge to another Special Court Judge is without jurisdiction. Only High Court can redress the grievance of any party to the case u/S. 4-A of the Act. All Special Courts are independent and equal in all respects under the notification. (DB) PLJ 1988 Cr.C. (Lah.) 1162 Nazim Hussain.
Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act (XV-1975) Provisions of Sec. 3 & 4-A of the Act are Unconstitutional as these erode the independence of Judiciary. Notification appointing the judges to these Courts quashed. (F.B) PLD 1996 Lah. 542, Imran Vs. Presiding Officer Punjab Special Court No. VI Multan etc.
Revisional authority of High Court not taken away by Act XV of 1975 Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Court). It is necessary that ouster of jurisdiction must be expressed in clear and unqualified words. These Courts are subordinate to High Court and High Court controls and supervises all courts subordinate to it. (D.B) PLJ 1996 Cr.C (Kar) 1070, Haleem Shah.
Cognizance on private complaint by Special Court for S.T. Activities u/S. 190 Cr. P.C. is competent and the Court could issue process against the accused. Subsequent filing of police challan u/S. 173 Cr.P.C. does not divest the Special Court of its jurisdiction u/S. 5(3) of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 to take cognizance of the case. 1994 SCMR 2177, Riffat Hayat v. Judge Special Court and another = PLJ 1994 SC 539.
Complainant has no right of appeal u/S. 417 (2-A) Cr.P.C. for offence under Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act 1975. (D.B) PLJ 1997 Cr.C (Pesh) 1369, Faiz Muhammad v. Mehrab Shah; PLD 1997 Pesh. 166.
For determination of jurisdiction of Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities not only the contents of FIR are to be relied upon but also material in report u/S. 173 Cr. P.C. has to be considered which means the result of the investigation. (D.B) PLJ 1996 Lah 1409, Sardar.
Non-Scheduled Offence is to be tried alongwith the Scheduled offence by the Special Court of Suppression of Terrorist Activities. PLJ 1994 S.C 328, Sher Akram v. Sher Qadir = 1994 SCMR 1092.
Offences in respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance IX of 1984 Bail. can be granted by High Court u/S. 561-A, Cr. P.C. to prevent the abuse of the process of court or to secure the ends of justice. The powers of High Court u/S.s. 439, 426, 491, 498 and 526, Cr. P.C. are expressly excluded. Right of appeal from conviction is provided. The power of the High Court or the Sessions Court to grant pre-arrest bail or to suspend a sentence are excluded. The Special Court is empowered to grant pre-arrest bail as it has got all the powers of Sessions Court and High Court. High Court has power to grant bail to the accused during the pendency of investigation of the case. The High Court as court of appeal has no power to suspend the sentence pending the final determination of the appeal. 1991 SCMR 599. Allied Bank v. Khalid Farooq.
Death sentence order passed by Special Court of Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975 is not to be sent to High Court as reference. General law does not apply to Special enactment (DB) PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Q) 531 State v. Abdul Qadar.
Addl. Sessions Judge being incharge as Sessions Judge is competent to act as Special Court under STA Act, 1975. (DB) PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Q) 608 Haji Dilbar v. Shah Muhammad etc.
Jurisdiction of Sessions Court ousted under Suppression of Terrorist (Special Courts) Act, Amendment Act 1990, when deceased was done to death by Kalashnikov. Acquittal set aside and case remanded to Special Court for trial de novo, under Special Courts Act, 1975. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 64 Muhammad Ashraf v. Ghulam Rabbani etc.
Bail for offence u/S.s. 109, 324/34, PPC cancelled by Special Judge, Suppression of Terrorist Activities Court u/S. 497(5), Cr.P.C., held, as the challan of the case had not been sent to the Special Court, the order of the Special Court was coram non judice. Bail allowed. (DB) PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lah.) 968 Abdul Qadus.
Absconding accused may appeal to the High against the judgment of the Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities without surrendering himself. If the accused appears before the trial Court he would have the right of retrial. If he appears before the High Court direct in appeal it would be presumed that he had not admitted the allegations against him. Special law permits trial in the absence of the accused. (DB) PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Kar.) 1220 Muhammad Ashfaq, etc.
Bail on statutory ground for offence under Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Court) Act, 1975, Sec. 5-A(8). Held, High Court can admit an accused to bail for scheduled offence facing trial before a Special Court (S.T.A. Act) u/S. 497, Cr.P.C. Period of detention of petitioner exceeding one year. Bail allowed. (DB) PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lah.) 863 Muhammad Siddiq.
Ground of statutory delay though not available to the accused but was to be shortly available because the accused was arrested for too long a period than could be warranted u/S. 5-A and Sec. 5-A(1)(2) of Suppression of Terrorist Activities (SC) Act, 1975. Liberty of a person being one of primary Constitutional guarantees could not be trifled with. Bail allowed. (DB) PLD 1998 Kar. 124, Zulfiqar Ali.
Sec. 345 Cr.P.C. & Supersession of Terrorist Activities Act. Murder or an attempt to murder is compoundable offence irrespective of any amending provision in the Supersession of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. Appellants awarded 7 years R.I. u/S. 324 PPC read with Sec. 311 PPC for committing "Fasa-fil-Arz". (DB) 1998 (Pesh.) 505 Sarfraz Khan, etc.
Jurisdiction of Special Courts under Article 212-B of the Constitution extends to only those cases which lead to public outrage or create panic or an atmosphere of fear or anxiety amongst the public or section thereof, and it would not by itself make the offence heinous unless it was also gruesome, brutal and sensational in character or shocking to public morality, So long as the offence possessed such characteristics the same would be heinous otherwise not. When case is transferred u/S. 5 (2) of Ordinance XXV of 1991 Special Courts for Speedy Trials Government is to state that the said case be tired by Special Court in the Public Interest. When a case is merely registered the order is u/S. 5 (1) of the Ordinance and the case should have the characteristics of heinousness, that is, be gruesome, brutal and sensational or shocking to public morality. When case did not have such characteristics the judgment of the Special Court was set aside in appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and sent for retrial to the court of Sessions Judge for offences u/S.s. 302, 324/34, PPC. 1992 SCMR 177. Muhammad Yaqub and another.
Special Court can only try offences mentioned in Schedule. It cannot try offences which are not mentioned in the Schedule. (F.B.) PLJ 192 Lah. 370, Ghulam Shabbir and 36 others.
Not necessary that Kalashnikov be recovered to make an offence a Scheduled offence under Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 3 empties of Kalashnikov were recovered from the spot, (DB) NLR 1999 Cr. 191 Abdul Qudoos.
Special Court (S. Terrorist Activities) has no jurisdiction to try a case u/S. 302, 148, 149 PPC when sec. 365-A PPC added later on but prosecution failed to prove demand of ransom by the culprits. Case sent back to Sessions Court. (D.B) PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Kar) 355 Ali Akbar etc.
Not Scheduled Offence under S.T.A. (Special Courts) Act, trial court directed to return charge sheet to court of competent jurisdiction. Application allowed bail and directed to appear before the court of competent jurisdiction. (D.B) PLJ 1996 Cr. C (Kar) 1191, Mirza Mazhar Ali.
Bail, Pre-arrest or after arrest in offence in respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance IX of 1984 can be granted by a Division Bench of High Court irrespective of the bar in Sec. 10 of the Ordinance IX of 1984. Such bar limits jurisdiction of a single judge to exercise power of an appellate Court. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Ka.) 106 Irfan Aslam.
Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities are competent to refer back the cases to ordinary Criminal Courts if accused are found to have not committed "Scheduled Offences" within the meaning of Sec. 2(b) of Act XV of 1975. 1992 MLD 287, Muhammad Iqbal etc.
Case triable by Special Court under Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 tried by Addl. Sessions Judge. Held, order passed by Special Judge was without jurisdiction and set aside. Case remanded to the Special Judge Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act 1975. (DB) PLD 1998 Q 60, Muhammad Karim v. Mumtaz Ahmed and others.
Case u/S. 365-A, PPC pending before Special court, STA Act, 1975 quashed u/S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. on being satisfied that the continuation of proceedings against accused petitioner in Special Court would be of no use as there was no possibility of conviction of the accused and it would result in protracted trial only causing agony and misery to the accused/petitioners. (DB) NLR 1999 Cr. 181 Nazir Iqbal. etc.
Offence u/S. 365-A PPC cannot be tried by Special Court when the offence had been committed much before the offence u/S. 365-A came into force on 3-9-1989 vide Ord. IX of 1989. 1995 SCMR 980, Nathey Khan v. Khanu alias Khan.
Jurisdiction of Special Court. Plea of trial court not being competent neither raised before Special Court nor taken up in memo of appeal. Accused not allowed to raise the argument in appeal. 1992 SCMR 351, Muhammad Yousaf etc.
Once a notification is issued by Federal Govt. for trial by Special Court on the basis of material before it the presumption is that the notification was correctly made unless otherwise proved. It is for the Federal Government to decide whether the transfer of the case to Special Court was in "Public Interest". It is not necessary for the Federal Govt. to mention in notification whether the offence was gruesome, brutal and sensational or shocking to Public Morality. 1992 SCMR 372, Liaqat Ali etc.
High Court empowered to grant bail in schedule offences under Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act XV of 1975. High Court as appellate authority is competent u/S. 497, Cr. P.C. to grant bail in cases triable by Special Court. NLR 1991 Cr. 28 Arif Saeed. (FB) 1985 P.Cr. LJ 205. Muhammad Gul and another referred. NLR 1989 Cr. 193 Saeed Khan.
Bail under Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act can be granted by the High Court u/S. 497/498, Cr. P.C. at pre-trial stage. NLR 1989 Cr. 193 Saeed Khan.
"Cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex." It means that "Reason is the soul of law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself." The Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act lays down that the appeal be heard by the High Court Judges within 3 months and sentence is not to be suspended. The argument is that when the case is not heard within 3 months the sentence can be suspended u/S. 561-A, Cr. P.C. PLD 1991 SC 640. Mst. Neelam Nawaz.
Possessing klashnikov without a licence is punishable with 7 years under the Arms Ordinance, as such it does not fall in the prohibitory clause. Bail allowed. NLR 1990 Cr.30. Ashiq Hussain Shah
No presumption could be drawn that unrecovered Kalashnikov was unlicensed weapon. When offence u/S. 13-D of the Arms Ordinance is not committed alongwith case u/S. 13-D of the Arms Ordinance is not committed alongwith case u/S. 302, 324/34, PPC Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities has no jurisdiction to try the case. Police directed to submit challan to a competent court. (DB) 1999 P.Cr.L.J. 476 Jahangir.
Mauser pistol of 30 bore recovered from the accused does not attract a scheduled offence triable by the Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities. Conviction set aside. PLD 1991 Kar. 266. Muhammad Aslam.
Country made pistols of. 32 bore & 30 bore recovered from accused. Held, trial by Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities was coram non judice. Supreme Court upheld the High Court judgment. 1995 SCMR 1285, State v. Bakhtiar Ahmed.
Automatic semi-automatic pistol, 32 bore and 30 bore pistols do not fall in the class of weapons described in the Schedule to the Special Courts Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, therefore trial by the Special Court is coram non judice. 1995 SCMR 59, State v. Bakhtiar Ahmed and another.
Automatic pistol such as mauser, possession without licence offence under Arms Ordinance, held, not tribal by Special Court under Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act. Held, trial by Special Court being coram non judice, appeal accepted. (DB) PLJ 1991 Cr. C. (Lah.) 187. Bakhtiar Ahmed.
When FIR silent whether pistol or rifle used was automatic or Semi-automatic, the offence against the accused is not triable by Special Court under Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act 1975. (DB) PLD 1998 Lah. 318, Inam Ullah Rashid.
Section 216, PPC and use of automatic pistol attract provisions of Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. (DB) PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Q) 1507 Gul Hassan.
Trial of offence not in schedule, by Special Court, for offence u/S. 364, PPC alongwith offence u/S. 365-A, PPC. Held, the Special Court had no jurisdiction to try the case. (DB) PLJ 1991 Cr. C. (Lah.) 396. Muhammad Shafiq.
Trial of offences not mentioned in the Schedule by Special Court is not legal NLR 1989 Cr. 667. Nasir Hussain.
Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act XV of 1975. Non Scheduled Offence to be tried as Scheduled offences. Subsection (2) of section 4 of the Act creates an exception to sub-section (1) of section 4 and provides that if the accused is charged with more than one offences and one of them is not a Scheduled offence, it is necessary for the Court to record its opinion in respect thereto and try the offence as if it was a Scheduled offence. Words: "As is a Scheduled offence" clearly signify that non-scheduled offence is to be tried as scheduled offence. 1994 SCMR 1092, Sher Akram v. Sher Qadar.
Use of automatic rifle in committing offence u/Ss. 302, 307/34 PPC would not make it a "Scheduled Offence" unless the same were shown to be unlicensed rifles, thereby bringing the case within the mischief of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, Sections 8,9 & 10. Also held that the Sessions Court was not empowered to transfer such case to Special Court. Order set aside. 1992 MLD 287, Muhammad Iqbal etc.
Rifle of 303 bore or all other such weapons which are not automatic or semi-automatic or alike to G III and Klashnikov do not fall under the schedule to the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act 1975, PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Pesh) 467, Gul Jamat.
303 Rifle is not in Schedule of Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act 1975. Held trial before Special Judge was coram non judicel. Appellant acquitted. (D.B) PLJ 1997 Cr. C (Lah) 139, Fareeda.
Offence for possessing rifle of. 303 bore or over, musket of 410 bore or over, pistol or revolver of. 441 bore or over and or their ammunition are not triable by Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975. (DB) NLR 1991 Cr. 329 Najmal Hassan etc.
"Klashnikov, a G III rifle or any other type of assault rifle" MENTIONED IN THE SCHEDULE of Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 indicates the intention of the legislature not to include all automatic or semi-automatic fire-arms in the Schedule. Therefore, offences concerning 303 bore rifle or over musket of 410 bore or over, pistol or revolver of 441 bore or over and the ammunition of such weapons or about Mauser pistol are not triable by the Special Courts. Such trials held coram-non judice. Appeals accepted. (DB) PLJ 1992 Cr. C. (Lah.) 155, Bakhtiar Ahmed.
Recovery of Klashinkov magazine only from the petitioners. Cases sent for trial to Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 (Act XV of 1975). Held, as the offence is not covered by the Schedule to he Act XV of 1975 the case shall be tried by an ordinary criminal court. (DB) PLJ 1997 Lah. 1559, Rana Naveed v. Special Judge, etc.
When fire-arm was not proved to be automatic or semi-automatic weapon the trial by Special Court of Suppression of Terrorist Activities was held to be without jurisdiction. It was the duty of the Court to ascertain what type of weapon it was even though the prosecution or the defence did not do so. High Court obtained the opinion of a fire-arms expert, an Army Armourer, to ascertain the type of weapon used. PLD 1994 Lah. 93, Nusrat. (DB). = PLJ 1994 Cr.C (Lah.) 212.
Alleged klashnikov not sent to ballistic expert to find out whether the weapon was automatic or semi-automatic. In the absence of the data whether the alleged weapon fell within the Schedule the Special Court did not have the jurisdiction to try the case. Appeal allowed. PLJ 1995 Cr.C. 176, Muhammad Akram.
No expert opinion about weapon whether automatic or semi-automatic, thus making the jurisdiction of Special Court to try the case doubtful, trial stood vitiated. Appellant acquitted. 1995 PCr. LJ 455, Muhammad Akram = PLS 1995 Cr.C 176.
Klashnikov allegedly recovered from the appellant when examined by the firearms expert neither found to be a klashnikov nor an automatic or semi-automatic weapon, held, trial by Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities was without jurisdiction. Retrial ordered and meanwhile sentence suspended. (DB) PLJ 1994 Cr. C. (Lah.) 212, Nusrat.
Recovery of single barrel gun and cartridge of klashnikov. Held the case had to be tried by an ordinary court of a Magistrate first class and not by Special Court. Appeal allowed. (D.B) PLJ 1995 Cr.C. (Kar) 442, Qadir Bakhsh.
Case transferred from court of Speedy Trials to Sessions Court as directed in the Abolition of Special Courts Act. The contention that as a klashnikov was used during the occurrence the case should be remanded to the Special Court for S.T. Activities was rejected as the transfer order was legal under the law. PLJ 1996 Cr.C (Q) 488, Zarak Khan v. Sessions Judge of Quetta etc.
Even when Klashnikov or its empty not recovered, When offence u/S. 307, PPC committed with such weapon, the Special Court did have the jurisdiction to try the case. PLD 1991 Lah. 346 Bilal Hussain.
High Court jurisdiction u/S. 439 or 561-A, Cr. P.C. or under Article 203 of the Constitution barred, as Special Court under Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act XV of 1975 is not subordinate to High Court. PLD 1980 Lah. 54 dissented from. (DB) PLD 1990 Kar. 250. Muhammad Ibrahim.
Retrospective effect of Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act is there as it is a procedural law. When an offence falls in Schedule the offence is exclusively triable by the Special Court. 1990 P.Cr. LJ 1719 Younas Khan.
Sec. 265-K, Cr. P.C. not to apply to Special Judge's Court. Order set aside and case remanded for trial. PLJ 1990 Cr. C. (Kar.) 387. State v. Zaida Khan.
High Court cannot suspend the sentence of the person convicted by the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Court u/S. sec. 7(1) of the Act. Bail cancelled. State v. Syed Qaim Ali Shah, 1992 SCMR 2192 & Muhammad Arshad, 1992 SCMR 118, referred. Bail cancelled. 1995 SCMR 929, Pervaiz Akhtar v. Muhammad Inayat etc.
Bail after conviction by Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act XV of 1975. In view of barring provision of Sec. 7 of the Act, trend of court is not to lean in favour of ouster of jurisdiction in case for grant of bail or extending benefit to an accused person of certain beneficial provisions of relevant law, held, Division Bench hearing appeal has power to grant relief which is ancillary or incidental to appeal. (DB) PLJ 1989 Cr.C. (Kar.) 318. Ubedullah.
Bail allowed in trial pending in Special Court STA, by High Court u/S. 497 Cr. P.C. In a case of murder and murderous assault the accused petitioners were in custody for more than two years and the delay in the conclusion of trial whatsoever occurred had not been due to any act of the accused/petitioners or any person acting on their behalf. There were no criminal cases pending against them, neither they were dangerous or hardened criminals. Trial Court overlooking provisions of section 5-A STA Act, 1975 had been adjourning the case. High Court agreeing with the rule laid down by Superior Courts in such like cases/matters allowed bail. (D.B) PLJ 1996 Cr.C (Kar) 643, Muhammad Hussain etc.
When case not triable by Special Court (S.T.A). High Court allowed bail to the petitioner u/S. 561-A read with sec. 498 Cr.P.C. Also held that Special Court could not send case to the Sessions Court, as Sessions Court cannot take cognizance of a case direct unless the case is sent up u/S. 190(3) Cr.P.C. in view of prohibition contained u/S. 193 Cr.P.C. (D.B) PLJ 1996 Cr.C (Kar) 1228, Bago etc. NOTE: It appears that section 347 Cr.P.C. has not been noticed by the court while considering the case. Special Court, according to sec. 5-A(9) is to follow the procedure of a Magistrate.
Sec. 5-A(8) S.T.A. Act and Sec. 497/498 Cr. P.C. Bail allowed by High Court as the recoveries appeared to be doubtful. Sec. 103 Cr.P.C. violated. Recovery witnesses all police officials. Police arrested the petitioner much before the date of arrest given by the police in documents. Bail allowed. (D.B) PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Kar) 1226, Akhtar Hussain.
Provisions of Ss 5(1) and 5(A) of S.T.A. (Special Courts) Act not strictly complied with. Bail allowed for offence u/S. 302/34 PPC, as according to medico-legal report injury was not grievous. PLJ 1996 Cr.C (Pesh) 1187, Inayat Ullah Khan.
Bail u/S. 5-A (8) of Suppression of Terrorist Activities, (Special Courts) Act 1975. Detention of under trial for 6 years in jail is shocking. In 10 cases against the accused he was acquitted or released on bail in 8 cases. He was convicted only in one case. Held, accused could not be termed as hardened or desperate criminal. Petitioner released on bail u/S. 497(1) Cr.P.C. (D.B) PLJ 1996 Cr. C (KAR) 53, Shamon Jatoi.
Bail u/S. 5-A (8) S.T.A. (Special Courts) Act & 436, 427, 148, 149 PPC, co-accused granted bail by trial court. Case of the petitioner being at par with the co-accused on bail. Bail allowed to the petitioner. (D.B) PLJ 1996 (Kar) 1293, Shahzad.
Benefit of provisos to sec. 497(1) Cr.P.C. is available to accused in cases triable by Special Court Suppression of Terrorist Activities. Sec. 5-A(8) of STA Act though not a complete code provides fetter on the power of the Special Court to grant bail but the principles emulated in Sec. 497 Cr. P.C. can be pressed in service for grant of bail. Both the High Court and the Special Court:
(1) Have to ignore the quantum of sentence relatable to the charge in issue when considering the grant or refusal of bail.
(2) Have power to press into service provisos 1 and 3 to Sec. 497(1) Cr.P.C. when considering the question of bail during the pendency of the trial before the Special Court. Referring to the case of Shah Muhammad v. The State 1983 SCMR 341, it was held that where the case of the accused clearly falls under proviso No. 3 of Sec. 497(1) Cr.P.C. the accused is entitled to bail as of right, while no discretion of the court is left intact. Sec. 5-A (8) of STA Act does not completely take away the power of the STA Court or the High Court for the grant of bail. Bail allowed. (FULL BENCH) PLD 1997 Kar 172, Shekil.
Bail after arrest including bail before arrest can be granted by High Court even where Special Court of Suppression of Terrorist Activities is seized of the case. (D.B) PLD 1997 Kar. 494, Nadeem Hamid,
Bail u/S. 5-A (8) STA (Special Courts) Act 1975 when 30 bore pistol was recovered. Discretion to grant bail vests in Court u/S. 497 Cr.P.C. and it must also be deemed to vest u/S. 5A (8) of Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act as well. When there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence, it is the discretion of the Court to grant bail. (D.B) PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Kar) 673, Kamran.
Bail petition not decided expeditiously by Special Court of S.T.A. When Articles 3 & 4 of the Constitution contain due process clause and Article 37 (d) of the Constitution makes provision for inexpensive and expeditious justice, and when faced with matters about bail Suppression of Terrorist Activities Courts or any other judicial or quasi judicial forum have to dispose of such matters expeditiously and without any delay. Bail was allowed to the petitioners as they had been under detention for over 2 years and their rial had not been concluded. (D.B) PLJ 1977 Cr.C. (Kar) 601, Muhammad Asim etc. V. Judge Special Court etc.
Sentence suspended u/S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. in case tried and sentenced by Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Court) as the appeal had not been decided within 3 months as laid down u/S. 7(2) of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975. (DB) 1999 P.Cr.L.J 394 Tahir-ud-Din.
"Bail not Jail", Court in its discretion can grant bail as the trend is "Bail not JAIL." Sec. 5 A (8) STA Act does not completely take away power of STA Court or High Court for grant of bail, however, it has placed all scheduled offence under prohibitory clause. Held, bail may be granted to an accused even if he is involved in a scheduled offence if there are reasonable grounds to believe that he has not committed the offence. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Kar.) 269, Shekil.
Section 8 of Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act is not applicable at bail stage. Petitioners released on bail. prosecution is not relieved of its duty to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Defence is only required to show that its plea is reasonably possible. In order to maintain consistency with principles of HUMAN RIGHTS, law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the High Court holds that section 8 of STA Act does not apply at bail stage. Bail granted. (F.B) PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Kar) 902, Abdul Khalil.
Sec. 497 Cr.P.C. is not displaced by Sec. 5-A(8) of Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975. Provoso to Sec. 497 (1) Cr.P.C. does not stand eliminated. The powers in sch cases are exercised by a bench of not less than two judges of the High Court. Held, provisions of Ss. 498 and 497 Cr.P.C. continue to apply to bails under the STA Act, 1975. Bail allowed. 1991 SCMR 599 & 1992 SCMR 2192 referred. (F.B.) PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Kar.) 1079, Dhani Bux.
In spite of delay of 4 « years in disposal of appeal the accused could not be released on bail in a triple murder case, u/S. 7(1) of Suppression of T.A. (Special Courts) Act, 1975, in peculiar circumstances of the case. 1997 SCMR 891, Allah Ditta etc.
Bail or suspension of sentence in cases under Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act XV of 1975 by High Court is barred under section 7 of the Act, as it is specifically mentioned that bail u/Ss.. 426, 498, 491, Cr. P.C. is not to be granted by the High Court. However, High Court can give relief u/S. 561-A, Cr. P.C. to secure ends of justice. (FB PLD 1990 Karachi 448, Abdul Khaliq.