EHSANULLAH and another vs THE STATE
This bail application arises from a criminal case involving charges under the Explosive Substances Act, the Anti-Terrorism Act, and the Arms Ordinance, following the recovery of hand grenades, detonators, and time pencils from the applicants' residence. The applicants sought post-arrest bail, contending that the search was conducted without a warrant in violation of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and asserting their status as minors. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the heinous nature of the offences and the alleged procedural irregularities. The Court held that the offences fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that prima facie evidence connected the applicants to the recovery of explosive materials. The Court determined that minority is not the sole consideration in heinous offences and that procedural compliance issues are matters for the trial court to determine. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed, with a directive for the trial court to conclude proceedings expeditiously.
- Is minority of an accused the sole consideration for the grant of bail in heinous offences?
- Does the alleged non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically entitle an accused to bail?
- Are offences involving the recovery of explosive substances subject to the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 165, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 4, Explosive Substances Act 1908
- Section 5, Explosive Substances Act 1908
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 13-E, Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, J.---The applicants Ehsanullah and Khairullah both sons of Abdul Rasheed seek bail in Crime No,3 of 2011 lodged by complainant Muhammad Aslam Bangulzai, IP/SHO, with Police Station, Gwadar on 4-1-2011 with the averments that on the said date, he along with his subordinates was patrolling in Official Vehicle at about 12-15 p.m. He received spy information that the applicants who are residing in the house of Abdul Rasheed are having explosive substance and ammunitions intends to commit target killing and terrorist activities. On getting the said information the complainant along with other Police officials under the supervision of D.P.O, S.P. Investigation and D.S.P, City, A.T.F. Officials, Lady Constables, District Police Official and B.C. Officials under section 165, Cr.P.C. Raided the said house, where applicants and one Haji Nasir were found present who were apprehended and on the pointation of applicants two handgrenades, 36 detonators and time pencils were recovered from the guest room and, one Revolver along with seven live cartridges on pointation of Master Haji Nasir from his room. On demand they could not produce license of recovered arms, which were secured under the mashirnama in presence of mashirs, the applicants were arrested and F.I.R. Was lodged against them and Haji Nasir under sections 4/5 of Explosive Substances Act, read with section 7, A.T.A. And 13-E, Arms Ordinance.
2. ' A bail application was moved before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gawadar who after hearing the parties rejected the same vide order dated 3-2-2011, hence this bail application.
3. ' Mr. Kamran Murtaza, learned counsel for the applicants contended that the requirements of section 103, Cr.P.C. Have not been made and search, was made without search warrant. He further contended that both the applicants are minors, thus, requested that the applicants be released on bail.
4. ' Haji Liaquat Ali, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that substantial evidence is available against the applicants, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. The allegations against the applicants are that two hand grenades, detonators and time pencil were recovered on their disclosure and pointation from their guest room. For the purposes of grant of bail in heinous offences minority is not sole consideration because each case has to be considered in the light of its own facts. The age of the applicants and non-compliance of section 103, Cr.P.C. Is yet to be determined by the trial Court. Since the offences with which the applicants are involved are heinous and falls within the prohibitory Clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Sufficient material to prima facie connect the applicants with the heinous offence is available on record, therefore, the applicants do not deserve the concession of bail at this stage. Resultantly their bail application having no merit is dismissed. However the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within period of three months from the receipt of this order. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall have no bearing on merits of the case.