MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Ramzan, who was charged under Section 13-B of the Arms Ordinance 1965 following the alleged recovery of a stengun. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the recovery and the prosecution's failure to obtain a forensic report regarding the weapon. The Court observed that the weapon was only sent to the Fire-arm Expert four days after the Court raised a query regarding its status, despite the offense carrying a penalty of life imprisonment. The Court expressed strong disapproval of the Investigating Officer's negligence in failing to secure expert evidence. Holding that the absence of a forensic report created uncertainty regarding the nature of the weapon and the applicability of the charged offense, the Court concluded that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, establishing the principle that a failure to timely secure expert forensic evidence in weapon recovery cases may render the prosecution's case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does the failure of the prosecution to send a recovered weapon to a Fire-arm Expert for opinion entitle an accused to bail on the grounds of further inquiry?
- When does a criminal case fall within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 13-B, Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Muhammad Ramzan son of Muhammad Siddique petitioner seeks his post‑arrest bail in case bearing F.I.R. No.331 of 2003, dated 10‑7‑2003 which stands registered against him at Police Station Satiana, District Faisalabad, under section 13‑B of Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) at the instance of Muhammad Ayub, S.‑I.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that while he was in custody in another case he disclosed that he could get a stengun recovered which he had concealed in a cluster of reeds (Sarkanda). According to F.I.R. upon this disclosure the petitioner led to the recovery of a stengun which was wrapped in a cloth. This was done twenty‑five minutes after registration of the earlier case, in which the petitioner had been arrested.
3. In support of his plea for bail the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and it was not possible that the recovery could be effected in the manner as stated in the F.I.R. as according to him the petitioner was taken in custody in another case bearing F.I.R. No.330 of 2003 only about 25 minutes back. He further submits that in the earlier case i.e. F.I.R. No. 330 of 2003 a licensed weapon belonging to the petitioner was recovered. He alleged that the petitioner has been involved in this case due to village rivalry.
4. Learned State Counsel Mr. Abdul Hafeez, Advocate has opposed the bail application.
5. On the last date of hearing i.e. 29‑9‑2003 had enquired from Muhammad Aslam, A.S.‑I. present in Court as to whether the allegedly recovered stengun had been sent to Fire‑arm Expert or not. On the said date the learned counsel for the petitioner had claimed that in fact the weapon had never been sent to Fire‑arm Expert and I adjourned the case to know about the factual position. Mr. Aslam A.S.‑I. present to Court today stated that the weapon had been sent to the Fire‑arm Expert on 3‑10‑2003 i.e. four days after the query was raised by this Court. The conduct of the police functionaries particularly the Investigating Officer in this case needs to be deprecated, inasmuch as he did not care even to send the weapon for Expert's opinion although the offence with which the petitioner has been charged entails life imprisonment.
6. Since there is no report available on the file as to what was the nature of weapon and as to whether the offence under section 13‑B, of the Arms Ordinance (ibid) is applicable or not therefore, I find that the petitioner's case is one of further inquiry falling within subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
7. Consequently, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject this furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Petition is hereby accepted.
H.B.T./M‑40/L Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- Syed WASIM SHAH Versus State 2010 YLR 2850