MUHAMMAD SALEEM And Another vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Saleem and Bashir Ahmad, who were implicated in F.I.R. No. 36 registered at Police Station Ghalla Mandi, Sahiwal, for offences under Section 7 of the Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, and Sections 458, 420, and 454 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners planted a pistol in the kiosk of a rival, Shamoon Masih, to frame him. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the investigation and the nature of the offences charged. The Court observed that the petitioners were implicated eight months after the occurrence, had joined the investigation, and that the offences under Sections 420 and 454 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were not substantiated, while Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance is bailable. Furthermore, no recovery was effected from the petitioners regarding the charge under the Surrender of Illicit Arms Act. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad interim bail, holding that the petitioners had made out a case for relief.
- Is the offence under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 considered bailable?
- Does the absence of recovery from the accused justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail in cases involving the Surrender of Illicit Arms Act?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the accused have already joined the investigation and the prosecution case lacks sufficient evidence?
- Section 7, Surrender of Illicit Arms Act
- Section 13, Arms Ordinance
- Section 458, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 454, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Muhammad Saleem and Bashir Ahmad petitioners have sought their pre --arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No.36 registered at Police Station Ghalla Mandi, Sahiwal on 21-11-2001 for an offence under section 7 of Surrender of Illicit Arms Act.
2. During investigation the petitioners were implicated as accused in the above--mentioned F.I.R.
And sections 458/420/454, P.P.C., alongwith section 13 of the Arms Ordinance were added.
3. The allegation against the petitioners was that they were inimical with one Shamoon Masih and Bashir Ahmad petitioner in order to take revenge placed pistol .30 bore in the kiosk (Khokha) belonging to Shamoon after breaking the lock.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case According to the F.I.R. Javed Ali, S.H.O. Who was on patrol duty was informed by Bashir Ahmad petitioner that Shamoon son of Amin Masih was keeping an unlicensed revolver with him on his Khokha. On the information of Bashir Ahmad petitioner Javed Ali, S.H.O. Raided the Khokha and after the opening of lock by Shamoon recovered pistol which was lying inside the Khokha. The petitioners were involved in this case after more than eight months of the occurrence. They have already joined the investigation. Section 420, P.P.C. Is bailable and is not made out in the circumstances of the case. Similarly, there is no evidence available vis-a-vis section 454. P.P.C.
Against the petitioner. Section 13 or the Arms Ordinance is also bailable. As far as section 7 of the Surrender of Illicit Arms Act is concerned no recovery was effected from the petitioners.
5. Considering all the circumstances confirm the ad interim bail already granted to the petitioners subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with a week.
H.B.T./M-2054/L