ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,KARACHI

Cr. B.A. No.82 of 2017

DATE                        ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

                              Mr. Nazakat Ali Mirani, advocate for the applicant.

Ms. Rahat Ahsan, D.P.G. for the State

Date of hearing:      03.03.2017

Date of order:         03.03.2017

ORDER

ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, J.-         After rejection of his earlier bail application, vide order dated 06.12.2016 passed by the learned V^th Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-Central in Sessions Case No. 982 of 2016, applicant/ accused, namely, Zubair S/o. Abdul Malik has moved toward this Court seeking post-arrest bail in Crime No.140/2016, registered under section 23 (1) (a) of Sindh Arms Act, 2013 (“the Act”) at Police Station Super Market, Karachi-Central.

2.       Briefly stated facts of the prosecution case, as narrated in the aforesaid F.I.R. are that on 29.09.2016 A.S.I. Zahid Hussain arrested the present applicant/ accused along with co-accused Faisal s/o Ibrahim and recovered a motor cycle bearing registration No. KCR-0824, which was stolen and regarding which F.I.R. bearing No. 189 of 2016 was already registered under section 381 P.P.C. at P.S. Khawaja Ajmir Nagri. The present accused was also found in possession of one pistol 30 bore with three live bullets, in working condition without license.   

3.       Heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned D.P.G. for the State and also perused the material available on record.

4.       Learned counsel for the applicant/ accused has contended that the accused has falsely been implicated in this case and the alleged pistol has been foisted upon him; that the police have submitted the challan against the accused in the case, hence he is not required for further investigation, while the connected case arisen out of Crime No. 189 of 2016 has already culminated by imposing fine upon the accused; that the police wrongly registered the F.I.R under section 23 (1) (a) of the Act as the pistol does not come within the definition of “firearms” as defined under section 2 (d) of the  Act, but under section 24 of the said Act; therefore, it is a fit case of further enquiry. 

5.       On the other hand, the learned A.P.G. has opposed this bail application on the ground that the accused, as per the contention of learned counsel for the accused has been convicted in the connected case, thus his arrest on the alleged day and recovery of stolen motorcycle is a proved fact and no ill-will has been shown on the part of the complainant against the accused to implicate him in this case; that the police recovered an un-licensed pistol from the possession of the accused and the report of ballistic expert is positive; that although not section 23 (1) (a) but section 24 of the Act attracts the alleged offence, which is also punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years; hence no case of further enquiry has been made out.   

6.       It appears that on the alleged day the accused was found in possession of one un-licensed pistol. Although “pistol” does not fall within the definition of “firearms” under section 2 (d) of the Act, but it is defined under section 2 (c) of the Act as “arms” and the punishment for possessing unlicensed pistol, as provided under section 24 of the Act, is imprisonment up to ten years, which does not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr. P.C. Per learned counsel, the accused has been convicted in connected case. No enmity or ill-will has been shown against the complainant with the accused for foisting a pistol. From the tentative assessment, prima facie sufficient material is available to connect the accused with alleged offence, which does not call for further enquiry, as envisaged under sub-section (2) of the Section 497 Cr. P.C. I; therefore, dismiss this bail application. However, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of three months.

7.       Needless to mention here that the observations made herein above are tentative in nature and would not influence the trial Court while deciding the case of the applicant/ accused on merits.

JUDGE