ASHIQUE ALI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant following the cancellation of his previously granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana. The applicant was charged with offences under Section 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and Section 7(c) of the Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991. The core legal question before the High Court was whether, given the circumstances and the nature of the alleged offences, the applicant was entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail. The applicant's counsel argued that the offences primarily fell under the Arms Ordinance, 1965, and that the applicability of the Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991 remained a matter for determination at trial. The State Counsel, having been put on notice, offered no objection to the bail plea. The Court, considering the submissions and the lack of opposition from the State, held that the applicant was entitled to bail. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the applicant, subject to the furnishing of a solvent surety and a personal recognizance bond to the satisfaction of the trial court.
- Is an applicant entitled to bail when the State Counsel offers no objection to the bail plea?
- Does the uncertainty regarding the applicability of the Surrender of Illicit Arms Act 1991 versus the Arms Ordinance 1965 provide grounds for the grant of bail?
- Section 13(d), Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 7(c), Surrender of Illicit Arms Act 1991
ORDER
1. ' The applicant seeks bail in a case under sections 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and section 7(c) of the Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991 (Crime No, 62 of 2001 of Police Station, Badeh).
2. It is submitted by the applicant's counsel that the applicant was granted bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dokri on 2-7-2001. Later on case came up before the learned Sessions Judge, Larkana whereafter the case of the applicant was sent to the Court of learned VIIth, Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, who has cancelled the bail of the applicant and remanded him to custody on 3-8-2001. The learned counsel contends that the facts of the F.I.R. Reveal that the offences at the most would fall under the provisions of section 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance, 1965.
3. He further contends that it is yet to be determined whether the offence would fall under the Ordinance, 1965 or under the Act of 1991.
4. Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahio, learned State Counsel is already available before the Court in other matter. He is put on notice and states no objection to the bail plea.
5. In view of the above, bail is granted to the applicant subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs, 50,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.