ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Crl. Bail Application No. 311 of 2014
Date: Order
with signature of Judge
For
hearing.
21st March, 2014
Mr. Naeem
Akhtar Khan Tanoli, Advocate
for applicant
Mr. Saleem Akhtar Buriro, Addl. P.G.
-------------
NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.- This bail
application has been moved on behalf of the Applicant /accused Laiq Khan son of Lias Khan, arising
out of Crime No.912/2013, registered at P.S. Korangi
Industrial Area, Karachi on 19.12.2013, under section 23(i)(a) of the Sindh
Arms Act, 2013.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as
disclosed in FIR are that present applicant/accused was arrested in Crime No.911
of 2013, under sections 353, 324, 186, 34 PPC, registered at Police Station Korangi Industrial Area, Karachi, from the link road, near Chaapra Hotel, upon his personal search, one 30 bore pistol
loaded with two rounds and one round in chamber was recovered. The
applicant/accused was injured due to firing of police. Applicant/accused had no
license for the arm carried by him. Mashirnama of arrest and recovery was
prepared. Thereafter applicant was brought to the police station, where FIR of
main case under Sections 353, 324, 186, 34 PPC and present F.I.R. was lodged on
behalf of State.
3. After usual investigation, challan was
submitted against the applicant / accused in the main case as well as in the
instant case/crime under section 23(i)(a) of the Sindh
Arms Act, 2013.
4. Bail application was moved on behalf of
the applicant/accused before learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge,
Karachi East, but the same was rejected vide order dated 06.02.2014.
5. Mr. Naeem Akhtar Khan Tanoli, learned counsel
for the applicant/accused mainly contended that bail has been granted to the
applicant in the main case. All P.Ws. are police officials and there is no
question of tampering with the evidence. He further contended that SHO has
foisted 30 bore pistol upon the applicant/accused due
to enmity. It is argued that bail has been granted to the applicant/accused in
main case under sections 353, 324, 186, 34 PPC by the trial Court. It is argued
that maximum punishment as provided in the Statute for carrying illicit arm may
not be awarded in this case as arm was not sealed on spot. In support of the
contentions, reliance has been placed upon the case of Jamaluddin
alias Zubair Khan Versus the State (2012 SCMR 573)
and unreported Criminal Bail Application No.276/2014 (Wali
Muhammad versus the State) granted by this Court dated 12.03.2014.
6. Mr. Saleem Akhtar Burriro, learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh, appearing on
behalf of the State, argued that unlicensed T.T. pistol has been recovered from
the possession of the applicant/accused. All the P.Ws. are police officials and
they had no enmity, whatsoever, with the applicant/accused, to foist arm upon him.
He has submitted that alleged offence falls within the prohibitory clause of
Section 497 Cr.P.C. He has opposed the bail application.
7. I am inclined to grant bail to the
applicant / accused for the reasons that all the prosecution witnesses are
police officials; case has been challaned; applicant
is no more required for investigation. There is no apprehension of tampering
with the prosecution evidence. In Section 24 of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, it is
provided that punishment of un-licensed
arm may extend to ten years and with fine. Needless to say that the Court while
hearing a bail application not to keep in view the maximum sentence provided by
the Statute but the one which is likely to be entailed in the facts and
circumstances of the case. Rightly reliance has been placed upon the case of Jamaluddin alias Zubair Khan
(supra). The fact that the Applicant has been in jail since his arrest, yet
commencement of his trial let alone its conclusion is not in sight, would also
tilt the scales of justice in favour of bail rather than jail. In the instant
case, 30-bore unlicensed pistol is alleged to have been recovered from
possession of applicant / accused, it was not sealed at the spot and this is
off shoot of main case. It has been argued that police has foisted the same
upon the accused with ulterior motives. Applicant / accused has
already been granted bail in main case. Therefore, keeping in view facts and
circumstances of the case, prima facie, case against applicant / accused
requires further inquiry as contemplated under subsection (2) of Section 497
Cr.P.C. Applicant / accused Laiq Khan son of Lias Khan is admitted to bail, subject to his furnishing
solvent surety in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy
Five Thousand only), and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned
trial Court.
8. Needless, to mention here that the
observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence
trial Court while deciding the case of the applicant / accused.
JUDGE
Gulsher/PA