HYDERABAD, Oct 8: A division bench of the Sindh High Court, Hyderabad circuit, has granted bail to six accused persons in a sedition case.

The bench comprising Justice Ghulam Rabbani and Justice Zia Pervaiz had earlier reserved the order on the petition, seeking bail. The order was announced the other day.

The petition was jointly filed by Mohammad, Niaz Ahmed, Lakhadino, Ismail Dada, Mohammad Issa, Wali Mohammad, Ali Nawaz and Qadir Bux. Except for Qadir Bux the rest were granted bail. Allah Bachayo Soomro and Abdul Wahid Katpar, advocates, appeared on behalf of the petitioners.

The sedition case was lodged under sections 147, 148, 149, 121A, 121 and 120, 153-A, 153, 353 PPC 324 read with section 6 of the Anti Terrorism Act on Nov 24, 2000, on the complaint of the SDM of Sujawal against 54 nominated accused persons, including Bashir Khan Qureshi, chairman of Jeay Sindh Qaumi Mahaz.

The JSQM had called for a protest sit-in in front of Shah Murad Sugar Mills, Sujawal, after a large number of mill workers were sacked by the management. The JSQM chief led the rally.

The complainant claimed that the participants of the rally chanted anti-Pakistan slogans and delivered speeches against the state. The complainant nominated 54 persons where as 35 were shown as absconders.

He stated that the mob raised anti state slogans.

Counsels, Abdul Waheed Katpar and Allah Bachayo Soomro, representing different petitioners argued before the court that the allegations levelled in the petitions against their clients were not covered by section 120, 121, 121A and added that the case was lodged at the behest of the management of Shah Murad Sugar Mills.

Initially 53 persons were challaned in the case but in the supplementary challan 19 accused were acquitted. The accused were not assigned any specific role in the FIRs, they argued.

The lawyers said that there was no reason to believe that the petitioners were involved in the matter and contended the registration of FIR as well as the detention of petitioners were against the provisions of law.

They said that the offences mentioned in the FIR do not cover requirements of section 6 of the ATA 1997 because there was no use of dynamite, bomb explosion and use of firearms.

They maintained that no injury was stated to have been caused to any person.

They argued that sections 6 and 7 of the ATA had not been applied either in the FIR or challan, therefore, the prosecution was supposed to have considered that there was no act of terrorism on the part of applicants.

Referring to section 120 PPC they argued that provisions of this section were not applicable to the case of petitioners so also sections 121 and 121-A and added that 19 persons out of 54, named in the FIR, had been let off by the court on the ground that they were wrongly mentioned in the FIR.

They said that section 6 was not applicable in this FIR. They prayed the court to declare that the ATA court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of this matter and declare the proceedings in the ATA court as null and void.

Additional AG of Sindh Masood Noorani, who was assisted by another state counsel, Azeem Panwhar, opposed the grant of bail.

He contended that the petitioners by firing directly on government functionaries had prevented them from discharging their duties.

He admitted that sections 6 and 7 of the Anti Terrorism Act were not applied in the FIR. He argued that even if no injury was caused to anybody else yet the offence was committed under section 324 because there were two separate punishments under this offence.

He maintained that if it had been assumed for the sake of argument that the allegations of waging a war against the government were not covered by sections 120, 121, 121-A and 153 the charges under section 324 were constituted as per the FIR.

He also admitted that no recovery had been made from petitioners. Considering the arguments of state counsels the court granted bail to six accused.