ALLAH BUX Versus THE STATE
The petitioner, Allah Bakhsh, sought post-arrest bail in a case arising from F.I.R. No. 71 of 2001 registered under section 7 of the Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991 at Police Station Harrand, involving the alleged recovery of a 303 bore rifle and 17 live cartridges. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 given the circumstances of the recovery. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail as the recovered weapon was not sealed at the spot, cartridges rather than bullets were found with the rifle, the weapon was not sent to an expert to determine if it was workable, and no public witnesses were associated with the recovery, thereby violating Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that procedural lapses in recovery, such as failure to seal weapons at the spot, non-association of public witnesses, and lack of expert verification, warrant further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, making the case one of further probe and justifying the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether failure to seal a recovered weapon at the spot justifies granting post-arrest bail?
- Does the non-association of public witnesses during a recovery violate Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 so as to bring the case within the scope of further inquiry?
- Is a case considered one of further probe under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the recovered firearm is not sent to an expert for verification?
- Section 7, Surrender of Illicit Arms Act 1991
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Allah Bakhsh son of Nanning Khan, petitioner, has sought his post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No,71 of 2001 under section 7 of the Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991, registered at Police Station Harrand, on 6-7-2001.
2.The precise allegation against the petitioner is that he led to the recovery of a rifle 303 bore alongwith 17 live cartridges.
3.According to the F.I.R. Ashiq Hussain, S.H.O., had received a secret information that the petitioner was having an illicit fire-arm with him, and therefore, he conducted a raid alongwith some other police officials. The petitioner is behind the bars. Investigation qua him has been completed.
4.The learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. And that the complainant has no personal grudge against the petitioner.
5.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that nothing was recovered from the petitioner and in fact the complainant was under the great pressure to show some sort of performance, therefore, fake recoveries of used weapons were planted from the poor persons.
6.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been noticed that recovered weapon was not sealed at the spot. Similarly it is strange that although a rifle was recovered from the petitioner yet instead of bullets, cartridges were found alongwith the rifle. After recovery of the rifle, the same was not sent to the expert, whether it is workable fire-arm weapon. It has also been noticed that the complainant at the time of recovery had not associated any public witness and the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Have been violated.
7.In the circumstances, the allegation against the petitioner needs further probe and inquiry within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
8.In view of the above discussion, I am inclined to allow this petition and grant bail to the petitioner, subject to his tendering bail bonds in the sum of Rs,twenty thousand with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Judge.