MUHAMMAD ARIF BAIG vs STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Muhammad Arif Baig, who was charged under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Act in connection with the recovery of a hand-grenade following a police encounter. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the absence of a Bomb Disposal Inspector's report confirming the serviceability of the recovered explosive and the significant delay in the trial proceedings. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the prosecution failed to provide evidence regarding the serviceability of the alleged explosive, thereby necessitating further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the applicant had been incarcerated for nineteen months without the framing of a charge, and there was no immediate likelihood of the trial concluding. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing that prolonged pre-trial detention without progress in proceedings constitutes valid grounds for relief, especially when the prosecution's evidence remains incomplete.
- Does the absence of a Bomb Disposal Inspector's report regarding the serviceability of an explosive constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can prolonged pre-trial detention without the framing of charges justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution fails to establish the functional status of the recovered explosive material?
- Section 4, Explosive Act 1884
- Section 5, Explosive Act 1884
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. Applicant Muhammad Arif Baig son of Saeed Baig, has applied for post-arrest bail in Crime No, 230/2006, under Section 4/5 of Explosive Act registered at P.S. Pak Colony. Karachi.
2. Succinctly, facts leading to the case are that applicant was arrested on 9.12.2006 after police encounter, one hand-grenade was recovered from his possession in presence of Head Constable Muhammad Hussain and Police Constable Ali Dost. Consequent thereupon, F.I.R. 'No, 229/06, under Section 353/324/34 P.P.C. was registered beside F.I.R. No, 230/2006 under Section 4/5 of Explosive Act, upon completion of the investigation, the applicant was sent up to face trial.
3. Mr. Muhammad Akbar Awan, learned counsel has contended that the applicant has been admitted on bail in Crime No 229/06., whereas the present F.I.R. is outshoot of the main case. It is urged that no evidence is available to connect the applicant as subverter or saboteur nor expert report is available on police file. It is urged that in the absence of the report of Bomb Disposal Inspector to the effect whether the hand-grenade was in serviceable condition or not, case against the applicant requires further inquiry as contemplated by sub-section 2 of Section 497 Cr.P.C.
4. Miss. Afsheen Aman, has vehemently opposed the plea raised on behalf of the applicant, contended that the applicant is not entitled to concession of bail.
5. It transpires that the applicant was enlarged on bail in the main case, present case is outshoot of the Crime No, 229/06, it also transpires that hand-grenade secured from possession of the applicant was examined by Bomb Disposal Inspector, his report is not available on record to suggest whether the same was in serviceable condition or not. Applicant is behind the bar from the last nineteenth months even charge has not been framed by the trial Court nor there is any likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future.
6. In view of the above, facts and circumstances, applicant Muhammad Arif is hereby admitted on bail, subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- (Rupees: fifty Thousand only) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.