MADAD KHAN and anothers vs The STATE
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the refusal of post-arrest bail by the Trial and High Courts following the recovery of arms and ammunition from a private vehicle in which they were traveling. The core legal question was whether the offence under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, was bailable in the Province of Punjab, considering the provincial amendment to the Schedule of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Supreme Court held that under the Federal law and Schedule-II of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the offence under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, is bailable, but noted that the Province of Punjab had amended the schedule to make it non-bailable. However, since the case arose from a jurisdiction where the federal bailable status applied or distinguishing prior provincial judgments, the Court determined that the offence was bailable and granted bail as a matter of right. The key principle laid down is that offences under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, carry bailable status unless validly altered by provincial amendment applicable to the relevant jurisdiction.
- Whether the offence under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965 is bailable under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a provincial amendment to the Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 alter the bailable status of offences under the Arms Ordinance 1965?
- Is an accused charged under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965 entitled to bail as of right when the offence is bailable?
- Section 13, Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 14, Arms Ordinance 1965
' NASIR-UL-MULK, J.---The petitioners were apprehended after a large quantity of arms and ammunition recovered from the private vehicle in which they were traveling. The vehicle was allegedly driven by Madad Khan and Gul Rehman was stated to be sitting in the front passenger seat. The arms and ammunition were recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle. The petitioners were declined bail by the Trial as well as High Courts.
2. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the offences for which the petitioners were charged, namely sections 13/14 of the Arms Ordinance, are bailable and that the High Court had erred in applying the amendment of the Schedule of the Criminal Procedure Code for the Province of Punjab.
3. The learned counsel representing the State when confronted with this argument was not in a position to controvert the same. The offence under section 13 is punishable with 7 years' imprisonment. According to Schedule-II of Cr P.C. Under the heading "Offences Against Other Laws" offences carrying punishment of more than 3 years but not exceeding 7 years are not bailable with the exception of offence under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, which have been expressly declared to be bailable. The Province of Punjab has brought about an amendment whereby the offence under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance has also been made non-bailable. The two judgments relied upon by the High Court, one from the Balochistan High Court, Quetta and the other of the High Court of Sindh, are distinguishable, as those cases were dealt with under the Arms Act, 1878 and not the Arms Ordinance, 1965.
4. In view of this legal position, the offence of section 13 the Arms Ordinance being bailable, the petitioners are entitled to bail as of right. They were therefore admitted to bail by short order dated 15-10-2012, which is reproduced here:-- "For reasons to be recorded later, these petitions are converted into appeals and allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and the appellants are admitted to bail for the sum of Rs,2,00,000 with two sureties each the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court."
Cited by 1 case
- IKRAM KHAN Versus State 2013 YLR 2646