MULTAN KHAN vs RIAZ DIN, INSPECTOR/SHO DUAABA POLICE STATION, HANGU
The petitioner filed a post-arrest bail petition in connection with F.I.R. No. 178 dated 18-5-2009, registered under Sections 324, 353, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, and Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance at Police Station Doaba, District Hangu. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail where the police officials sustained no injuries from the alleged firing and the petitioner himself received a firearm injury from police action. The Peshawar High Court held that the case against the petitioner called for further inquiry since no police official was injured and the petitioner was assigned the role of ineffective firing, while the recovery of a weapon fell under a bailable section of the Arms Ordinance. The court laid down the principle that ineffective firing coupled with the absence of injuries to the complainant party, alongside a corresponding injury sustained by the accused and bailable nature of weapon recovery, constitutes sufficient grounds for granting post-arrest bail.
- Whether ineffective firing at a police party without causing any injuries warrants further inquiry for the purpose of post-arrest bail?
- Is an offence under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance bailable?
- Does the receipt of a firearm injury by the accused during the same incident affect the entitlement to post-arrest bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 13, Arms Ordinance 1965
' SAID MAROOF KHAN, J.---The petitioner Multan Khan is accused of a case under sections 324/353/34, P.P.C. Read with section 7 ATA and under section 13 Arms Ordinance vide F.I.R. No,178 dated 18-5-2009 registered at Police Station Doaba District Hangu. He has filed the instant petition for post arrest bail on the ground that the evidence on record is not connecting him with the commission of offence and he has been falsely involved in the case.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State resisted the bail petition contending that the petitioner along with his co-accused had fired at the police party and that a Kalashnikov along with 15 round of 7.62 bore was also recovered from his possession and, therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
3. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The charge against the petitioner is that on 18-5-2009 at 1945 hours he along with his co-accused had fired at the police party. However, on the record there is nothing to suggest that as a result of alleged firing of the petitioner any one of the police officials had sustained any injury.
4. The question as to whether the petitioner had opened firing at the police party is a matter requiring further inquiry because none of the police officials is alleged to have sustained any injury as a result of his firing. In fact the petitioner had received fire-arm injury as a result of firing of the police party. The role assigned to the petitioner is that of ineffective firing. The recovery of Kalashnikov from the possession of the petitioner makes the offence punishable under section 13 Arms Ordinance which is bailable. For the above reasons this petition is allowed and-the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,100,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate.