MUHAMMAD SHERIN vs THE STATE
This criminal petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, Muhammad Sherin, who was charged under sections 419, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908, following the recovery of a hand grenade and a vehicle with allegedly fake registration documents. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the offences and the evidence presented. The Peshawar High Court held that since the offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 did not fall within the restrictive clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and because the prosecution failed to establish that the hand grenade was possessed for unlawful subversive activities or that it was a live explosive, the case warranted further inquiry. Consequently, the court granted bail, emphasizing that for offences punishable by less than ten years, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, especially absent evidence of prior criminal involvement or militant links.
- Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception for offences punishable by less than ten years imprisonment?
- Does the mere possession of an explosive substance without evidence of unlawful purpose or intent to cause damage satisfy the requirements for conviction under the Explosive Substances Act 1908?
- Can bail be granted when the prosecution fails to provide expert opinion confirming that a recovered explosive device is live and capable of detonation?
- Section 419, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5, Explosive Substances Act 1908
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMKANI, J.---Through the instant petition, petitioner Muhammad Sherin son of Jaffar Khan seeks his post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,218 dated 13-6-2012 registered for offence under sections 419/420/468/471, P.P.C. Read with section 5, Explosive Substances Act at Police Station Gumbat District Kohat. ,2. As per prosecution version, on 13-6-2012 at about 1400 hrs, complainant Sakhi Rehman S.H.O.
Along with other police personnel laid Nakabandi when in the meanwhile a motor bearing Registration No,3786/Peshawar emerged on the scene, which was signalled to stop for the purpose of checking. Resultantly, from the possession of driver of the said motor car, a hand grenade was recovered, who on inquiry disclosed his name as Muhammad Sherin, the present petitioner, who did not possess any valid documents of the vehicle, hence he was arrested on the spot and the hand grenade along with motor car were taken into possession by the local police, thus, the case was registered against the accused.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that as per opinion of APP he did not agree with the report of A.S.-I. That on the spot how he came to know that the vehicle number and registration documents are fake. Further submitted that the place of occurrence is thickly populated area but no statement of any independent witness has been recorded in respect of alleged crime. He was of the view that the record is silent regarding the fact that the hand grenade was having in possession of the petitioner for any unlawful purpose. He maintained that each section of law applied in this case carries punishment up to 7 years, therefore, in this view of the matter the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
4. Learned State counsel while rebutting the arguments from other side contended that the petitioner was arrested by the police on the spot red handed and that the registration documents of the motor car were declared by the concerned Motor Registration Authority to be fake moreso, when the FSL report with regard to the hand grenade is in positive, thus, on the available material the petitioner has no case for the grant of bail.
' Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Admittedly, sections 420 and 471, P.P.C. Are bailable while sections 419 and 468 P.P.C. Did not fall within the restrictive clause of section 447, Cr.P.C., so grant of bail in offences punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years is a rule and refusal is an exception. Regarding the offence under section 5 Explosive Substances Act, so far the prosecution has not collected any evidence or material that, the petitioner was having in his possession the grenade for unlawful purpose to carry out subversive activities or to cause damage to life and property. Moreover, no opinion of the expert has been brought on judicial file to show that the hand grenade was live and might explode.
When the learned State counsel was confronted whether the petitioner is a previous convict or involved in such like cases in the past, so his reply was in the negative. Additionally, the I.O. Has not found any link of the petitioner with the militants, therefore, in the given circumstances case for further inquiry is made out.
' For the aforementioned reasons, this petition is allowed and the B petitioner is granted bail in the sum of Rs,200,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court, who shall ensure that the sureties are local and men of means.