1998 P Cr (PLP)

RAJA QURESHI, J.‑‑‑ Bail has been sought by the applicant before us in respect of an offence registered under section 13‑D of the Arms Ordinance vide Crime No.30 of 1997 at Police Station Daur. The case of the prosecution as set up in the F.I.R. is that on 1‑7‑1997 at about 7‑30 hours police party had left for patrolling duty when they reached at Lashari Bus Stop and started to check the vehicles. It has been stated in the F.I.R. that at 9‑00 hours one Datsun coming from Nawabshah side had stopped sit Lashari Bus Stop, which one person came out and upon seeing the police party in uniform started running towards the Western side. On account of such suspicion the said person was caught hold of and upon his personal search he was found to be in possession of one pistol of 30 bore automatic and 7 bullets from the fold of his Shalwar out of which 3 bullets were missing. From the other fold of his Shalwar, one revolver of .38 bore and five bullets loaded were stated to have been recovered from his possession. Upon such search, seizure and investigation, the applicant has been sent up to face trial before the Court of the learned Sessions Judge and Special Court (S..T.A.), Nawabshah vide Sessions Case No.228 of 1997. The learned counsel before us has contended that the properties in terms of weapons and bullets have been foisted by the police on the ground that the police had a grudge against the applicant and. or, his brother, namely, Muhammad Saleem, who is stated to be a reporter in the newspaper and had been reporting against the police in particular in the press. tie .has further contended before us that the only private Mashir of recovery cited in the Mashirnama has exonerated the applicant by swearing an affidavit to the effect, that neither the said applicant was arrested in the presence of the said Mashir nor any pistol or revolver or for that matter any ammunition was recovered from him. Certified copy of the affidavit has been placed on record by the learned counsel for the applicant. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate‑General has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicant as two weapons of prohibited bore are stated to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. The learned Additional Advocate‑General further contended before us that assuming for the sake of argument if one witness has resiled from his earlier statement then the other witness of recovery is yet to be examined and on such basis conviction could be recorded. We had asked the learned counsel that would it not tantamount to tempering with the prosecution evidence, when only one private Mashir was there who has been won‑over and sworn the affidavit. Learned counsel informs us that such Mashir while executing the affidavit was identified by the partner of the learned counsel representing the applicant before the trial Court. Without touching the merits or the evidentiary value of the affidavit, we would only like to observe that such practice is surely not a healthy practice because this affidavit does not improve or disprove the case against the applicant and the said witness has yet to undergo the process of evidence at the stage of trial. Grant of, bail in such matters where prohibited bore weapons are recovered, one singular private Mashir has been won‑over, the trial has not yet proceeded, hence concession of bail cannot be advanced to the applicant. However, the learned trial Court is directed to examine the Mashirs of recovery within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order, whereafter the applicant could repeat his application for bail, if so advised. For the present, this application is dismissed. The above observations are tentative in nature and shall not be taken into consideration by the learned trial Court. Criminal Bail Application No.637 of 1997 is disposed. H.B.T./S0-141/K Application dismissed.