BAHADUR vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Sindh High Court on a criminal bail application filed by the applicant Bahadur, seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered at Police Station Bakrani concerning the recovery of a weapon. The core legal question raised is whether the alleged offence falls under Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance or under the Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991, and whether the prosecution story is rendered doubtful by multiple FIRs registered against villagers and the fact that the recovered repeater gun is licensed in another person's name. The State did not oppose the bail plea. The court held that since the applicability of the specific statute requires determination at trial and the maximum sentence provided under the Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991 is three years' rigorous imprisonment, the case falls within the prohibitory clause exception. The court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant subject to furnishing a solvent surety of Rs. 50,000 and a P.R. bond, laying down the principle that where the penal statute applicable is open to determination and the maximum punishment does not fall within the prohibitory clause, further inquiry into the guilt entitles the accused to bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when it is yet to be determined which statute applies to the alleged weapons offence?
- Does the registration of multiple FIRs against villagers affect the credibility of the prosecution story for the purpose of bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the maximum sentence provided for the offence is three years' rigorous imprisonment?
- Section 13, West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965
- Surrender of Illicit Arms Act 1991
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM NABI SOOMRO, J.----Itis contended that on 13-7-2001 CIA Police had raided the village of the applicant and had asked the villagers to produce their weapons. It is further contended that other F.I.Rs,Nos.70 of 2001, 73 of 2001, 74 of 2001 and 68 of 2001 of Police Station Bakrani were registered mala fidely as in the most of the cases, the weapons were produced by the licence holders. In the case of the present applicant Bahadur also, the repeater gun is shownto be licensed one which is in the name of Liaquat Ali. It is contended further that the prosecution story is false, the gun in the case was not secured by police during patrolling. The number of F.I.Rs, registered against persons of the same village falsifies the prosecution story. It is lastly contended that it is yet to be determined whether the offence would fall under S.13 of Arms Ordinance or under the Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991.
2. ' Learned counsel for the State has not opposed the bail plea of the applicant.
3. ' It is yet to be determined whether in the circumstances and the facts disclosed in the F.I.R., the offence would fall under the Ordinance of 1965 or under the Act of 1991. In any case, under the Act, 1991 also maximum sentence for three years' R.I. Is provided. Bail is, therefore, granted to the applicant subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court.
4. ' Criminal Bail Application No,541 of 2001 stands disposed of along with listed applications.