KAMRAN KHAN and another vs STATE and another
This criminal miscellaneous petition for post-arrest bail arises from the recovery of a substantial cache of arms and ammunition, including multiple pistols, rifles, and thousands of bullets, from the petitioners' vehicle. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the argument that the weapons were being transported under a valid license issued to a third party, and whether the potential minimum sentence of five years for the alleged offences removed the case from the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to bail, noting that the licensee never came forward to claim the consignment and that the vast volume and lethality of the recovered cache necessitated a denial of relief. The Court affirmed that even if an offence is punishable by less than ten years, the Court retains discretion to decline bail based on the nature of the accusation and supporting material. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the existence of a minimum sentence ceiling does not automatically exempt an offence from the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
- Does the existence of a minimum sentence of five years automatically exclude an offence from the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Is a court legally compelled to grant bail in offences punishable by less than ten years imprisonment?
- Can a court decline bail based on the nature of the accusation and the volume of recovered contraband despite arguments regarding a valid license?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Surprised by police contingent, in the wake of a tip-off, the petitioners were found with a huge cache of arms and ammunition in their vehicle at Faisalabad Road within the precincts of Police Station Rajoa Chiniot. The consignment comprised of the following:--
1. 16 pistols .30-bore with 24 magazines and 19000 bullets.
2. Kalashnikov with two magazine
3. One Repeater with four magazine
4. One rifle with 300 bullets
5. One rifle 44-caliber with 14 magazines and 400 bullets
6. 4 Rifles 222-bore with 10 magazines and 2100 bullets
7. 3200 bullets of 9 mm
2. Heard. Record perused,
3. Argument that the weapons and ammunition were being transported under a valid license issued to one Rana Kalim Arshad is beside the mark, at the said licensee never came forward to lay forth any claim and so is reliance by the learned counsel on the cases titled as Saif Ullah v. The State (1994 P.Cr.L.J 2340), Sheroz and another v. The State (2006 YLR 3167), Muhammad Sharif v. The State and another (2014 P.Cr. L.J 97), Abid alias Abbi Arain v. The State (2016 P.Cr.L.J note 109), Abdul Latif vs. The State (2016 P.Cr.L.J note 122) to argue that the petitioners may possibly be sentenced to imprisonment for five years as minimum sentence provided under the Statute and as such, their case was not covered by the prohibition provided under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Cases cited at the bar, based upon facts vastly distinguishable from the one in hand, are of not much assistance to the petitioners, as criminal cases are decided on the basis of their peculiar facts. Even otherwise, offences publishable with imprisonment for ten years or above would not fall out of the ambit of prohibition on the basis of lower sentence mandated as minimum ceiling, while certainly its benign impact an validly be considered favorably in an appropriatecase having regard to the facts and circumstances thereof. Even otherwise, there is no legal compulsion to grant bail to an accused in offences punishable with imprisonment of less than 10 years as the Court can decline discretionary relief depending upon the nature of accusation and material in support thereof. Given the volume of the cache with potentially awful lethality of the consignment, pointed inexorably upon the petitioners, albeit reliance upon a valid license, purportedly, granted to the afore-named Rana Kalim Arshad is a position that cannot be attended within the restricted scope of tentative assessm ent in the absence of any tangible material. Crl. Misc. No, 95103-B of 2017 fails. Petition is dismissed. Copy of this order be transmitted to District Police Officer Chiniot, he shall verify the veracity of plea taken by the petitioners before this Court with regard to their claims that the consignment was being transported under a valid license with a view to rule out any complicity by the licensee.