ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

CR. BAIL A. NO.S-974 OF 2013.

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

FOR HEARING.

30.10.2013.

Mr. Abdul Haq Qureshi, Advocate for applicant.

Syed Meeral Shah, D.P.G.

NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.- Through instant bail application, applicant Atif seeks post-arrest bail in Crime No.97 of 2013, registered at Police Station GOR Hyderabad, under section 23-(1)(a), The Sindh Arms Act, 2013.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case, as stated in the FIR, are that on 02.10.2013, SIP Ameer Alam Junejo of Police Station GOR left police station alongwith his sub-ordinate staff for patrolling. When the police party reached at GTC ground road, as per FIR, present accused was driving the motorcycle, he was signaled to stop but he started running; police surrounded him and caught him hold; his name was enquired, to which he disclosed his name as Atif S/o Naseeruddin Daswali. From his possession one 30-Bore pistol and five live bullets were recovered, whereas his motorcycle was secured under section 550 Cr.P.C. Applicant/accused had no license for the weapon carried by him; F.I.R. was lodged by SIP Ameer Alam against the applicant/accused on behalf of the State under section 23-A(1)(a), The Sindh Arms Act, 2013.

3. After usual investigation, challan was submitted against the applicant/accused. Earlier bail application, moved on behalf of the applicant/accused was rejected by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad vide order dated 11.10.2013.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused mainly contended that applicant/ accused is no more required for investigation purpose; 30-Bore pistol, allegedly recovered from the applicant/accused has not been sent to the Ballistic Expert for report and the punishment of the alleged offence extends to 10 years. According to learned counsel, alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant/accused relied upon bail order dated 22.10.2013, passed by this Court in Criminal Bail Application No.S-844 of 2013 (Mour v. the State).

5. Syed Meeral Shah, learned D.P.G, appearing on behalf of the State argued that The Sindh Arms Act, 2013 has been enacted to curb the proliferation of arms and ammunition and offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. He has opposed the application.

6. 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/accused is no more required for investigation; there is no apprehension of tampering with the prosecution evidence; pistol recovered from the possession of the applicant/accused has not been sent to the Ballistic Expert for report. In Section 24 of The Sindh Arms Act, 2013, it is mentioned that punishment of un-licensed arm may extend to ten years and with fine. The Court while hearing bail application is not to keep in view the maximum sentence provided by statute but the one which is likely to be entailed in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant case, 30-bore unlicensed pistol has been recovered from possession of accused. It has been argued that police had ill-will with accused to foist pistol upon him. Therefore, keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, while relying upon above cited, prima facie, case against applicant/accused requires further inquiry as contemplated under subsection (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Applicant/accused is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

Needless, to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence trial Court while deciding the case.

JUDGE