IMRAN AHMED vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Imran Ahmed, who is facing trial before a Special Court under the Arms Ordinance, 1965, for the alleged possession of a .30 TT pistol and three live cartridges. The core legal questions before the Court were whether the recovery of the weapon, witnessed solely by police officials, complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and whether the prolonged delay in the trial, despite the statutory mandate for day-to-day proceedings under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, justified the grant of bail. The Court, after reviewing the circumstances and relevant precedents regarding the exercise of discretionary powers in bail matters, disposed of the application. The judgment emphasizes that the failure to adhere to procedural safeguards regarding recoveries and the failure to conduct trials on a day-to-day basis, as required by special statutes, are significant factors that courts must consider when evaluating the entitlement of an accused person to bail pending trial.
- Does the recovery of weapons witnessed only by police officials satisfy the requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the failure to conduct a day-to-day trial as mandated by the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975 constitute grounds for the grant of bail?
- Section 13(d), Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 5-A(1), Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975
- Section 5-A(2), Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975
ORDER
1. The applicant faces trial under section 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance before Special Court-III(STA)
2. Karachi. Bail was refused to him by such Court on 17-4-1996. Hence the present bail application in this Court.
3. As to facts, recoveries from the applicant consist of a .30 TT pistol and three live cartridges. Such vas made and the arrest was effected at 3 p.m. From a public place on 12-9-1996 but Mashirs of recoveries are only police officials. This raises the question whether the rule in section 103, Cr.P.C.
4. Was complied with. What is more, what to say or evidence being recorded in the case, no charge has yet been framed since 12-9-1996, the provisions of section 5-A(1) and (2) of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, requiring a day to day trial and no adjournments except in the interest of justice, notwithstanding. '
5. As to the concept of grant of bail in such like matters and how the discretionary powers of the superior Courts can be invoked, reference may be made to the pronouncements of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in State v. Qaim A.I Shah (1992 SCM R 2192), Ejazur Rehman v. State (Criminal Petition No.140 of 1995 converted into Criminal Appeal No.445 of 1995) and Mir Abbas A.I Abidi v.
6. State (Criminal Petition No.58-K of 1996). Mention may also be made to Full Bench decisions of this Court in Shakeel v. State (Criminal Bail Application No.1073 of 1995) and Abdul Khalil v. State etc. (Criminal Bail Application No. 1329 of 1995 and others). We may, like wise, further drawn upon Division Bench decisions of the Lahore High Court and this Court respectively in Zulfiqar v. State (1991 PCr.LJ Note 275 at p. 193) and Kamran v. State (Criminal Bail Application No. 999 of 1996). The case of Ejazur Rehman v. State supra, it may be added here, came up for construction before a Full Bench of this Court in Dhani Bux v. State etc. (Criminal Bail Application No.1267 of 1995 and others) and the same, accordingly, is to be constructed in line with the majority opinion in the said full Bench case.
7. Disposed of.