PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court has ruled that a case of ‘kidnapping for ransom’ was triable by the anti-terrorism court because of its inclusion in the Schedule of the anti-terrorism law.
A bench consisting of Justice Mudassir Ameer and Justice Aurangzeb rejected pleas of four of the accused in the high-profile Dr Warda Mushtaq murder case from Abbottabad, seeking deletion of Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), 1997, from the FIR of the occurrence and transferring of the case to an ordinary court.
It upheld an order of the ATC Hazara region of April 13, 2026, whereby the present petitioners had moved an application for transferring their case to a regular court.
The petitioners included a central character in the case, Ms Rida Waheed Jadoon, her husband Waheed Ahmad and two others Nadeem and Pervez.
Rejects accused’s plea to transfer Dr Warda murder case to regular court
The bench, in its 16-page detailed judgement, decided the question: “Whether the learned Anti-Terrorism Court, Hazara Division, Abbottabad possesses lawful jurisdiction under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 to try the petitioners for the offence under Section 365-A (kidnapping for ransom), P.P.C., notwithstanding the contention that the ingredients constituting ‘terrorism’ within the meaning of Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 are not attracted to the facts of the case?”
On December 4, 2025, Dr Warda was allegedly taken from the hospital by her friend, Rida Waheed, to her house on the pretext of returning the 67 tolas of gold jewelry she had taken from her. However, the medic’s body was later recovered from the Leli Banuta forest on December 8.
The FIR of the incident was initially registered on Dec 5, 2025, at Abbottabad’s Cantt Police Station, by the father of the deceased, under different provisions of the PPC (Pakistan Penal Code) and Section 7 of the ATA.
After the confirmation of the doctor’s death, Section 302 (intentional murder) PPC was also included in the FIR.
The complainant’s counsel, Atif Ali Khan Jadoon, and additional advocate general Sardar Basharat opposed the petitions, contending that the ATC had the jurisdiction to try the accused in the instant case.
The bench observed that it was an admitted position that initially, Section 7(1)(a) of the ATA was incorporated in the FIR but later, the charge under Section 365-A PPC was framed against the accused by the trial court.
“It is equally undisputed that offence under Section 365-A, PPC falls within Entry No. 4 of the Third schedule appended to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997,” it observed.
The bench discussed in detail several provisions of the ATA and ruled: “A bare reading of the above provisions unmistakably demonstrates that the Anti-Terrorism Court derives jurisdiction not only in respect of offences which strictly fall within the definition of ‘terrorism’ under Section 6 of the Act but also in respect of ‘scheduled offences’ specifically incorporated in the Third Schedule to the Act. Thus, the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court is not confined merely to offences punishable under Section 7 of the Act; rather, it extends independently to all scheduled offences by virtue of Section 12 of the Act.”
The court added that it was by now a settled principle of law that an ordinary case of kidnapping for ransom committed for personal motive, monetary gain or private vendetta might not amount to ‘terrorism’ unless accompanied by the requisite design or purpose envisaged under Section 6(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
It, however, declared that such an offence nonetheless remained triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court because of its inclusion in the Third Schedule to the Act.
In the judgement authored by Justice Aurangzeb, the bench ruled that in such cases, the Anti-Terrorism Court might ultimately convict an accused under Section 365-A of the PPC simpliciter and not under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, unless the prosecution independently established the necessary ingredients constituting an act of terrorism.
It added that the ATC, Hazara Division, at Abbottabad had rightly assumed jurisdiction in the matter and had committed no illegality in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act.
Referring to the preamble of the ATA, the bench pointed out that it unequivocally declared that the Act was promulgated not only for the prevention of terrorism and sectarian violence but also for the speedy trial of heinous offences.
“Kidnapping for ransom is undeniably one of the gravest offences affecting public safety, human liberty and societal order. It was precisely because of the alarming increase and heinous nature of such offence that the Legislature consciously brought Section 365-A of PPC within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court by incorporating the same in Entry No. 4 of the Third Schedule,” it observed.
Published in Dawn, May 30th, 2026