IBRAHIM Versus YAQOOB ALI KHAN

ORDER

The petitioner, Muhammad Akram, has moved this post‑arrest bail petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. in a case registered against him under section 13/20/65 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 at Police Station Gurjakh District Gujranwala, vide F.I.R. No. 196 dated 28‑8‑1988.

2. The allegation is that a sten‑gun was recovered from the possession of the petitioner on 28‑8‑1988 at Pull Ganda Nala, Garjakh, District Gujranwala. The petitioner was taken into custody on the same date.

3. The contention is that the alleged offence committed by the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause. It is next submitted that all the witnesses of recovery are the police officials and that no public witness has been cited by the prosecution. Learned counsel maintained that the trial has not commenced as yet despite the expiry of about more than five months. Lastly, it is urged that Mr. Nusrat Hussain Qureshi, the learned Presiding Officer of Anti -Terrorist Court has been transferred and that no new Presiding Officer at his place has been appointed as yet. The learned State counsel has opposed the grant f of bail to the petitioner. His argument is that the petitioner has not moved the learned trial Court for bail first.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The contention that the learned trial Court has not been moved first is misplaced on the ground that the Presiding Officer of the learned trial Court at the moment has been transferred and that no learned Judge has been appointed in his place as yet. The petitioner is behind the bar for the last more than five months and the trial has not commenced as yet. It is not likely that the trial shall commence even in the near future. Admittedly the alleged offence committed in the case does not fall under the prohibitory clause. The learned Additional

Advocate‑General is present and has made a statement that he has no objection if the petitioner is admitted to bail. In the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Lahore.

It may be noted that the petitioner was released on bail vide the short order dated 7‑1‑1989 and these are the grounds for admitting him to bail.

S.A./M‑1058/L Bail allowed.