Syed AFZAL ALI vs THE STATE
This is a bail application filed by Syed Afzal Ali seeking post-arrest bail in Crime No. 141 of 2008 registered under Section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance at Police Station Chakiwara, following the alleged recovery of a Kalashnikov without a license. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given that he was already enlarged on bail in connected offshoot cases where violations of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were observed, and considering the State's lack of objection. The Sindh High Court held that since the applicant was already on bail in the main cases arising from similar circumstances involving procedural lapses, the applicant was entitled to bail in the present case as well. The court laid down the principle that consistency in granting bail should be maintained when an accused is already admitted to bail in connected or offshoot matters arising out of the same police action.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail under the Arms Ordinance when he is already on bail in connected offshoot cases arising from the same police action?
- Does the lack of an objection from the State affect the consideration of a bail application?
- What is the effect of non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the grant of bail in connected criminal matters?
- Section 13-D, Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---Through this application, applicant Syed Afzal Ali, seeks bail in Crime No,141 of 2008 registered at Police Station Chakiwara under section 13-D Arms Ordinance.
2. ' The prosecution has alleged recovery of one Kalashnikov with loaded magazine containing 15 rounds and the accused, on demand, failed to produce license thereof.
3. ' Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the instant crime is offshoot of Crime No,143/2008 under section 6/9(c), Control of Narcotic Substance Act and Crime No,139/2008 under sections 353/ 324/34, P.P.C. Wherein the applicant/ accused has been enlarged on bail upon observing violation of section 103 Cr.P.C., therefore the applicant is entitled to bail in this case, as well.
4. ' Learned counsel for the State has no objection for grant of bail to the accused.
5. ' Since the applicant is already on bail in the main cases and the instant case is offshoot of those cases where the Courts while granting bail have observed violation of section 103, Cr.P.C.
6. ' Consequently, I admit the applicant/accused to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,1.00,000 (Rupees one lac only) to the satisfaction of the trial court.