ASHIQ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Ashiq Hussain, who was charged under the Surrender of Illicit Arms Ordinance, 1991, following the alleged recovery of a .12 bore gun from his personal search. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the offense and the circumstances of the recovery. The petitioner contended that the case was fabricated due to mala fide intentions and connivance between the police and his opponents, noting that the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant law and that no public witnesses were associated with the recovery. The Court, observing that the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause and noting the absence of independent public witnesses to the recovery, found the petitioner's involvement prima facie doubtful. Consequently, the Court accepted the bail application, holding that the petitioner had successfully made out a case for the grant of bail, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
- Is an offense under the Surrender of Illicit Arms Ordinance 1991 considered to fall within the prohibitory clause for the purpose of bail?
- Does the absence of independent public witnesses to a recovery create a prima facie case for doubt in a bail application?
- Can a bail application be granted when the petitioner alleges mala fide registration of the case by the police?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 7, Surrender of Illicit Arms Ordinance 1991
- Section 21, Surrender of Illicit Arms Ordinance 1991
- Section 91, Surrender of Illicit Arms Ordinance 1991
ORDER
' Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,112 registered on 22-6-2001 under sections 7/21/91 of Surrender Illicit Arms Ordinance, 1991, with Police Station Barana, District Jhang recorded on the statement of Ghazanfar Ali, S.-I.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was apprehended by the police and on his personal search a .12 bore gun was recovered from his custody. The petitioner could not produce any licence hence the abovesaid case was registered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the case is false and has been lodged with mala fide intention. The petitioner was not in possession of any weapon and the case has been got registered in connivance with opponents of the petitioner by the S.H.O. In order to pressurize the petitioner to enter into the compromise with his opponents. It is further contended that the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause.
4. Learned State Counsel has opposed the bail application.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record. The allegation against the petitioner is that a .12 bore gun was recovered from the petitioner which offence admittedly does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the personal search has been made by the police officer. The petitioner on the other hand has argued that the registration of the case is with mala fide intention and ulterior motive as the S.H.O./Investigating Officer is acting on the behest of the opponents of the petitioner. The case does not fall within the prohibition clause and the involvement of the petitioner prima facie is doubtful as the only police witnesses have been cited as the recovery witnesses without joining any person of the public. The petitioner has succeeded in making out a case for bail.
6. This application is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial/Duty Magistrate.