PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court has granted bail to a suspect arrested on charges of facilitating an attack on apolice post in Swat which had left a policeman killed and two others injured around four months ago.

A bench consisting of Justice Mohammad Naeem Anwar accepted the bail petition of the suspect named Mumtaz Ali on condition of furnishing two surety bonds of Rs300,000 each.

The occurrence had taken place on Aug 28, 2024, at Naway Kalay (Swat), and the FIR was registered at Counter Terrorism department (CTD) police station Swat under different provisions of Pakistan Penal Code, Explosive substance Act and Anti-Terrorism Act.

The SHO of Banr police station was complainant in the FIR stating that an unidentifiedattacker had hurled hand grenades on a police post which had damaged its outer gate and also injured three policemen.

He added that one of the injured cop later on succumbed to his injuries at a hospital.

During course of investigation the present petitioner along with co-accused Burhanullah, Shahzad, Mohammad Haris and an absconding accused Sohail alias Sultan were charged for the occurrence.

The police claimed that the accused Sohaib was a member of the proscribed Tehreek-iTaliban Pakistan and his two brothers had also died as a result of exchange of firing with the security forces.

It was alleged that the accused sultan had shifted to Afghanistan along with his family members.

The police claimed that Sohaib, who is the main suspect, had returned to Pakistan a month prior to the occurrenceand had attacked the police post along with the accused, Haris. It was added that the suspect Mumtaz (petitioner) was also in contact with the main accused through a mobile phone.

Advocate Syed Sultanat Khan appeared for the petitioner and contended that his client was falsely implicated in the instant case and there was no ocular or circumstantial evidence against him.

He contended that he was not directly charged in the FIR and was nominated in the case after two months of the occurrence.

The bench observed that it was an unseen occurrence and the petitioner had not been directly charged in the initial report.

The bench added that the petitioner was nominated as accused in the case on Oct 29 after two months of the occurrence on the basis of CDR (call datarecord)report.

However, the bench observed,no det all was available in record that how and in which manner the police had come to know about involvement of the present petitioner in the terrorist attack except mere mentioning ofthefactthathe had contacted the main accused through a SIM which was in his name.

The bench observed that it was a settled law that in the circumstances where accused was not nominated in FIR rather nominated through supplementary statement without disclosing the source of information, it became a matter of further inquiry.

An assistant advocate general pointed out that bail petitions of two other suspects in the case named Burhanullah and Shahzad had already been rejected by the high court in Oct and the present petitioner deserved the same treatment.

However, the bench observed that the role of the present petitioner was distinguishable from the other co-accused.