Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice M. Bilal KhanCh. Ghulam Mustafa Bandesha,Abdul Hafeez
2004 P Cr
2004 P Cr. L J 752
[Lahore]
Before M. Bilal Khan, J
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.5074/B of 2003, decided on 7th October, 2003.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 497(2)‑‑‑West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13‑B‑‑ Bail, grant of‑‑‑Further inquiry‑‑‑Conduct of the police functionaries particularly the Investigating Officer in the present case needed to be deprecated, inasmuch as he did not care to send the weapon to Fire‑arms Expert for his opinion though the offence with which accused had been charged entailed life imprisonment‑‑‑Since there was no report available on the file as to what was the nature of weapon and as to whether offence under S. 13‑B of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 was made out or not, case was one of further inquiry within subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Bail was granted in circumstances.
Ch. Ghulam Mustafa Bandesha for Petitioner.
Abdul Hafeez for the State.
Date of hearing: 7th October, 2003.
ORDER
Muhammad Ramzan son of Muhammad Siddique petitioner seeks his post‑arrest bail in case bearing F.I.R. No.331 of 2003, dated 10‑7‑2003 which stands registered against him at Police Station Satiana, District Faisalabad, under section 13‑B of Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) at the instance of Muhammad Ayub, S.‑I.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that while he was in custody in another case he disclosed that he could get a stengun recovered which he had concealed in a cluster of reeds (Sarkanda). According to F.I.R. upon this disclosure the petitioner led to the recovery of a stengun which was wrapped in a cloth. This was done twenty‑five minutes after registration of the earlier case, in which the petitioner had been arrested.
3. In support of his plea for bail the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and it was not possible that the recovery could be effected in the manner as stated in the F.I.R. as according to him the petitioner was taken in custody in another case bearing F.I.R. No.330 of 2003 only about 25 minutes back. He further submits that in the earlier case i.e. F.I.R. No. 330 of 2003 a licensed weapon belonging to the petitioner was recovered. He alleged that the petitioner has been involved in this case due to village rivalry.
4. Learned State Counsel Mr. Abdul Hafeez, Advocate has opposed the bail application.
5. On the last date of hearing i.e. 29‑9‑2003 had enquired from Muhammad Aslam, A.S.‑I. present in Court as to whether the allegedly recovered stengun had been sent to Fire‑arm Expert or not. On the said date the learned counsel for the petitioner had claimed that in fact the weapon had never been sent to Fire‑arm Expert and I adjourned the case to know about the factual position. Mr. Aslam A.S.‑I. present to Court today stated that the weapon had been sent to the Fire‑arm Expert on 3‑10‑2003 i.e. four days after the query was raised by this Court. The conduct of the police functionaries particularly the Investigating Officer in this case needs to be deprecated, inasmuch as he did not care even to send the weapon for Expert's opinion although the offence with which the petitioner has been charged entails life imprisonment.
6. Since there is no report available on the file as to what was the nature of weapon and as to whether the offence under section 13‑B, of the Arms Ordinance (ibid) is applicable or not therefore, I find that the petitioner's case is one of further inquiry falling within subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
7. Consequently, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject this furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Petition is hereby accepted.
H.B.T./M‑40/L Bail granted.