BIHAR ALI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Bihar Ali, who was charged under the Arms Ordinance, the Explosive Substances Act, and the Surrender of Illicit Arms Act following an alleged recovery of a rifle and a hand-grenade during a police raid. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the prosecution's evidence and the petitioner's claims of police enmity. The Court held that the case required further inquiry, thereby granting bail. The ratio of the decision rests on significant discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence: specifically, the recovery memo appeared to be prepared with different inks and handwritings for the witnesses' signatures, suggesting they were not present at the spot, and the serial number of the hand-grenade recorded in the recovery documents did not match the report from the Bomb Disposal Squad. The court established the principle that where material discrepancies in recovery proceedings cast doubt on the prosecution's version of events, the case falls within the scope of 'further inquiry,' justifying the grant of bail.
- Does a discrepancy in the ink and handwriting of witnesses on a recovery memo constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can a mismatch between the serial number of a recovered item in the recovery memo and the forensic report justify the grant of bail?
- Is the presence of material doubts regarding the circumstances of a recovery sufficient to categorize a case as one of further inquiry under bail law?
- Section 13, Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 5, Explosive Substances Act 1908
- Section 7, Surrender of Illicit Arms Act 1991
' Under section 13, Arms Ordinance, section 5 of Explosive Substances Act and section 7 of the Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, Bihar Ali petitioner is apprehended vide F.I.R. No,412, dated 24-6-2001 of Police Station Batagram and refused bail by the Court below.
2. The police party having information that one Zahidullah son of Hikmat Khan had gathered some armed people including the one Muhammad son of Taza Gul, an absconder, in connection with some dispute over the land and they were available in the but of Zahidullah. When the place was raided, everybody made good his escape but Bihar Ali was apprehended alongwith a rifle of 303 bore, 10 rounds thereof and a hand-grenade, the number whereof was engraved on the lever.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has come out with a lengthy story of the petitioner's enmity with a police constable who is instrumental to the registration of this case as well. Whether there is any truth in the charge or not, is a matter to be pleaded at trial. Suffice it to say at this stage that the very recovery as per recovery memo. Seems to be not in order. The recovery officer has prepared the recovery memo. Presumably at the spot in black ink whereas the names and signatures of the witnesses below the memo. Are in blue ink and also in different handwriting. Had the witnesses been present on the spot, this discrepancy would not have occurred.
4. A specific serial number of the hand-grenade is given in the Murasila as well as in the recovery memo. But the same is missing in the report of Bomb Disposal Squad. It remains yet to be determined at trial as to whether the recovery was made at the time and place alleged by the prosecution and as to whether the hand-grenade examined by the Bomb Disposal Squad pertained at all to the present case. This being a case of further inquiry, the application is accepted and the petitioner Bihar Ali is directed to be released on bail provided a bond in a sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with two local reliable and resourceful sureties is furnished to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate.
Cited by 2 cases
- ABDUL GHANI and others vs THE STATE 2005 P C R L J 215
- ABDUL GHANI Versus State 2005 PCRLJ 215