AKBAR ZADA vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, who was charged under Section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance for the possession of a large quantity of weapons. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, alleging that the weapons were foisted upon him and that the arresting agency failed to comply with procedural requirements under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the Police Rules 1934. Additionally, the applicant cited medical grounds, specifically chronic kidney disease, as a basis for bail. The State opposed the application, arguing that the recovery was substantial, the police had no motive for enmity, and that the procedural objections regarding the search and the registration of the F.I.R. were legally unfounded. The Court held that the applicant was arrested in action while possessing weapons without a valid explanation. It further clarified that the provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding search are inapplicable when an individual is caught carrying items in transit. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the bail plea and dismissed the application.
- Does the requirement for search witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply when an accused is apprehended while carrying weapons in transit?
- Is a police officer from a specialized branch competent to lodge an F.I.R. at a local police station after making a recovery?
- Does the mere allegation of false implication and foisting of weapons constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail in cases of recovery of a large quantity of arms?
- Section 13-D, Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 4, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 156, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SALMAN HAMID, J.---Applicant, who is presently confined in Malir Jail, Karachi is booked for offences punishable under section 13-D Arms Ordinance, under F.I.R. No,206 of 2011 of Police Station Baldia Town, Karachi, (F.I.R.).
2. Facts, deducible from the F.I.R. Are that complainant SIP Altaf Hussain, Crime Branch-1, Karachi, upon spy information apprehended the applicant with large number of weapons.
3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that he is innocent and has been implicated falsely after foisting weapons on him who otherwise is a guard in a factory where workers of two political parties dumped the above weapons with which the applicant has nothing to do. On legal plain it was argued that there was violation of sections 4, 103 and 156 Cr.P.C. And that the arresting agency did not follow the Police Rules, 1934. It was also argued that the applicant is a kidney patient and is suffering from such ailment acutely.
4. Bail application was resisted and opposed by the learned State counsel. It was argued that question of foisting of such large number of weapons worth of which was substantial does not arise and that the police had no enmity with the applicant. It was also mentioned that the F.I.R. Was lodged by Police Station Baldia and therefore, there was no violation of sections 4 and 156 of Cr.P.C.
Combating the arguments of section 103, Cr.P.C. It was mentioned that such provision of law comes into play with regard to search of a place; whereas in the present case, the applicant was found carrying the weapons from one place to another in a bag.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned State counsel and have gone through the file and police paper.
6. It is clear from the file and the police paper that the applicant was arrested inaction and was found possessing and/or carrying the weapons to which he had no explanation except what has been built up by his counsel in the bail application. As far as the alleged violation of various sections of Cr.P.C. Are concerned, suffice to mention that it has Come on record that the applicant was arrested by complaint of Crime Branch-I, Karachi and made recovery of weapons and therefore, he was competent in law to lodge complaint at the police station concerned. F.I.R. Was lodged by Police Station Baldia Town. In this view of the matter the applicant has failed to make out any case for bail and therefore, application is dismissed.