Law: Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: 7

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 324, 395, 436, 427, 290, 291, 148, 149, 337-L(ii), 34, 109, 120-D, 121, 121-A, 131, 146, 153, 153-A, 153-B, 505

Law: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898

Section: 497

             (a)   Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 395, 436, 427, 290, 291, 337L(2), 109, 120-D, 121, 121-A, 131, 146, 153, 153-A, 153-B, 505, 148, 149 & 34--Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)--Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, dacoity, mischief by fire and explosive substance, causing damage or loss of fifty rupees or more through mischief, public nuisance, hurt, abetment, criminal conspiracy, attempt to wage war, attempting to seduce a soldier, rioting, giving provocation with intent to cause riot, promoting enmity between different groups, public mischief, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, common intention, act of terrorism---Post-arrest bail, grant of--Further inquiry---Petitioner was not nominated in FIR for the occurrence of 9th May 2023---Petitioner was implicated by the complainant in his supplementary statement on the basis of tweets/audio/video clips on social media---Admissibility, relevancy and evidentiary value of the supplementary statement of the complainant as well as the alleged tweets/audio/video clips on social media were yet to be determined at the trial which had not yet concluded despite lapse of almost two years---Thus, bail could not be withheld as mere punishment---Petitioner had been arrested for the allegation of hatching the criminal conspiracy for the occurrence of 9th May, 2023---Allegation was yet to be proved by the prosecution at trial--Prosecution had yet to explain the delay of three days in lodging FIR as well as delay of about one month by the complainant for making the supplementary statement---On the basis of tentative assessment of the material so far available on record, the case against the petitioner also fell within the ambit of further inquiry--Petitioner was also entitled for grant of bail on the rule of consistency as coaccused had already been granted bail by the Court for the same allegations in the same FIR---Petition was converted into appeal and same was accepted, in circumstances and accused was granted bail.

(b)   Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---