INAYAT ALI vs The STATE

ORDER

' RIAZAT ALI SAHAR, J.---Applicant' Inayat Ali has applied for post-arrest bail in Crime No,35 of 2013, registered with Police Station, Mithani, under section 23(1)(a) of Sindh Arms Act, 2013 (to be, hereinafter, referred as the Act), after his bail plea has been turned down by trial court vide order dated 29-7-2013.

2. As per contents of the F.I.R., on 3-7-2013, complainant HC-Qamaruddin of Police Station Mithiani, recovered unlicensed pistol from the possession of applicant, already arrested in connection with Crime No, 34 of 2013, of Police Station, Mithiani, under. Sections 324, 353, 148, 149, 402, 399 P.P.C., and for carrying unlicensed pistol by the applicant, above F.I.R. Under section 23(1)(a) of the Act was registered.

3. It was, inter alia, contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the instant case falls within the definition of 'arms' as provided in section 2 of Sindh Arms Act, 2013; same is governed by section 24 of the Act, which provides maximum punishment up to 10 years. He further contended that the contents of F.I.R. Are silent about the date, time, and place of alleged recovery of pistol from the possession; case has been challaned, as such applicant is no more required for further investigation and he has no previous criminal record; there is no likelihood to tamper with' the prosecution evidence.

4. Conversely, learned D.P.-G. For the State, contended that by new enactment, legislature intended to curb the misuse of weapons; offence is punishable up to 14 years as provided under section 23(1)(a) of the Act, thus, same falls within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And section 34 of the Act excludes the applicability of section 103, Cr.P.C, therefore, he prayed for dismissal of bail plea of the applicant.

5. I have considered the respective submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.P.- G. For the State and examined the record carefully.

' From perusa- l of F.I.R., it reveals that the manners, in which the alleged recovery of unlicensed pistol was effected from the possession of the applicant, have not been described therein as the ingredients thereof are silent about the date, time and place of alleged recovery and, therefore, the case calls for further inquiry. Perusal of section 23(1)(a) and section 24 of the Act would show that the subsection (1)(a) of section 23 of the Act deals with situation where one acquires, possesses, carries or controls any firearm or ammunition in contravention of section 3 (license or acquisition and possession of firearm and ammunition) while the section 24 of the Act provides for punishment of possessing arms or ammunition licensed or unlicensed with the aim to use them for any unlawful purpose. Further perusal of sections 23 and 24 stipulates that section 23(1) provides maximum punishment up to 14 years, whereas section 24 provides maximum punishment upto 10 years' imprisonment, thus, apparently instant case, wherein recovery is of pistol, which falls within the definition of 'arms' as provided in the section 2, which carries maximum sentence of 10 years, as provided in section 24 of the Act. It is settled principle of Law that grant of bail in cases covered by non-prohibitory offences is a rule and refusal is an exception, and in peculiar facts and circumstances of the, instant case portray that no exceptions exist therein.

7. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the applicant has succeeded to make out a case for further inquiry, as contemplated under subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Consequently, instant bail application was allowed by short order dated 4-9-2013 and the applicant was admitted to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum Of Rs,100,000 (Rupees one lac) with PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. These are reasons in support of the short order.