FAROOQ AHMAD vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who was charged under Section 7 of the Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991, following the alleged recovery of an unlicensed .32 bore revolver. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given significant procedural irregularities in the recovery process. The Court observed that the police failed to create a sealed parcel of the weapon at the scene, did not send the weapon to an Arms Expert for verification, and failed to associate any public witnesses with the recovery, thereby violating the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Holding that the prosecution's case required further inquiry and probe under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court granted bail. The key principle laid down is that procedural laxity by the police, particularly the failure to comply with mandatory recovery witness requirements and forensic verification, renders the prosecution's case subject to further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the failure to associate public witnesses during a recovery violate the requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the failure to send an alleged firearm to an Arms Expert for verification constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the prosecution fails to create a sealed parcel of the recovered weapon at the spot?
- Section 7, Surrender of Illicit Arms Act 1991
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Farooq Ahmad son of Muhammad Ramzan, petitioner, has sought his post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No,304 of 2001, dated 7-7-2001 under section 7 of the Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991, registered at Police Station Jampur.
2. According to the allegation leveled in the F.I.R. The petitioner was apprehended during the raid conducted by the complainant Syed Zahid Hussain, S.H.O. As he had received secret information.
On personal search of the petitioner, allegedly .32 bore revolver was recovered from him and as the petitioner could not produce any licence, therefore, the above referred case was registered against him. The investigation against the petitioner has been completed and he is in judicial lock-up.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Admittedly, no sealed parcel of the alleged recovered weapon was made at the spot. It has also been conceded that the recovered weapon has not been sent to any Arms Expert to ascertain whether indeed it was the firearm weapon or not. The offence is punishable with imprisonment for 14 years. In these circumstances, such laxity on the part of the police cannot be tolerated. I have further noticed that although the recovery has been effected from the public place yet none from the public was associated in the recovery proceedings nor any explanation has been given as to why the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Were violated. I am fortified in my view by placing reliance on a case of Ahmad Jan alias Shinoo v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 506.
4. The crux of the above discussion is that the allegation against the petitioner needs further probe and inquiry within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his tendering bail bonds in the sum of Rs,one lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Judge. Disposed of.