2001 PLP 2622 (YLR)
ALLAH BUX‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2622 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J |
| Parties | ALLAH BUX‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2622 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2622 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2622 (YLR) (ALLAH BUX‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Ishaq Sahota for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Surrender of Illicit Arms Act (XXI of 1991), S.7‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Recovered weapon was neither sealed at the spot nor was sent to the expert to find out if the same was workable or not‑‑‑Although a rifle was recovered from the accused, yet instead of bullets, cartridges were found alongwith the same‑‑‑No public witness had been associated with the recovery proceedings which was flagrant violation of the provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Allegation against the accused, thus, needed further probe within the purview of S.497(2), Cr.P.C‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail accordingly. Sh. Muhammad Raheem for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Sh. Muhammad Raheem for the State. Allah Bakhsh son of Naurang Khan, petitioner, has sought his post‑arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No.71 of 2001 under section 7 of the Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991, registered at Police Station Harrand, on 6‑7‑2001.
2. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that he led to the recovery of a rifle 303 bore alongwith 17 live cartridges.
3. According to the F.I.R. Ashiq Hussain, S.H.O., had received a secret information that the petitioner was having an illicit fire‑arm with him; and therefore, he conducted a raid alongwith some other police officials. The petitioner is behind the bars. Investigation qua him has been completed.
4. The learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and that the complainant has no personal grudge against the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that nothing was recovered from the petitioner and in fact the complainant was under the great pressure to show some sort of performance, therefore, fake recoveries of used weapons were planted from the poor persons.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been noticed that recovered weapon was not sealed at the spot. Similarly it is strange that although a rifle was recovered from the petitioner yet instead of bullets, cartridges were found alongwith the rifle. After recovery of the rifle, the same was not sent to the expert, whether it is workable fire‑arm weapon. It has also been noticed that the complainant at the time of recovery had not associated any public witness and the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. have been violated.
7. In the circumstances, the allegation against the petitioner needs further probe and inquiry within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
8. In view of the above discussion, I am inclined to allow this petition and grant bail to the petitioner, subject to his tendering bail bonds in the sum of Rs. twenty thousand with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Judge. N.H.Q./A‑283/L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail allowed.