KHALID KHAN vs THE STATE through S.H.O., Tarnol
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Khalid Khan facing charges under Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Act in F.I.R. No. 420 registered at Police Station Tarnol, Islamabad. The core legal question concerns whether the alleged recovery of chemical cylinders from the petitioner's vehicle, given inconclusive laboratory and expert reports regarding their usability in explosive devices, warrants the grant of bail. The Islamabad High Court accepted the bail application, holding that the uncertainty surrounding the nature of the recovered substance and the lack of definitive adverse forensic findings brought the case within the scope of 'further inquiry' under the law. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's expert reports fail to conclusively identify a recovered substance as an explosive material, the benefit of such ambiguity tilts in favor of the accused at the bail stage.
- Does the absence of a conclusive expert report identifying a recovered substance as explosive material bring the case within the scope of further inquiry for bail?
- Whether an accused found transporting unverified chemical cylinders is entitled to post-arrest bail when laboratory analysis remains inconclusive?
- Section 13, Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 3, Explosive Act
- Section 4, Explosive Act
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD AZIM KHAN AFRIDI, J.---Accused/petitionel Khalid Khan is seeking post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 420 dated 27-9-2011, registered under section 13 of Arms Ordinance, 1965, and 3/4 of Explosive Act, Police Station Tarnol, Islamabad.
2. According to the report, police party headed by Sher Ahmad Khan, S.-I. Intercepted two vehicles bearing registration No,LHT-136 and ST-350-ICT. The accused/petitioner driving vehicle No,ST-350- ICT was arrested when, after search of the vehicle, five cylinders containing material resembling calcium, hydrogen, phosphorus were recovered from the vehicle which material was usable in preparation. Of explosive devices.
3.. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that contents of F.I.R. Are indicative of the fact that the substance allegedly recovered from the vehicle driven by the accused/petitioner was not exactly a substance which was usable in explosive devices. He referred to the report of expert and argued that the same was not identified as a substance usable in explosive devices. He also referred to another report sought by the prosecution from Wah Industry Ltd. Wherein it was opined that testing facility of the subject sample was not available with the said organization. He argued that no case against the accused/petitioner is made out by the Investigating Officer.
4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the State argued that the accused/petitioner was caught red handed while transporting 8 Kg substance usable in explosive devices. That the report of the laboratory cannot be taken into account as the sample was not analyzed which would not entitle the accused/petitioner to the grant of bail in such a heinous crime.
5. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties heard and record perused.
6. The very contents of F.I.R. Suggests that the police party was not certain about the nature of substance and illicit use of the same in any explosive device. Report of expert of Counter Terrorism Wing, FIA dated 1-1-2011 is not indicative of any adverse findings. Though the report of organization of Wah Industry Limited dated 12-10-2011 was not ascertained due to non-existence of any laboratory having such facility yet the same would not disentitle the accused/petitioner from the grant of bail rather such eventuality would bring the case of the accused/petitioner within the parameters and scope of "further inquiry".
7. In view of the above, bail application of the accused/petitioner is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds to the tune of Rs,2,00,000 with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.