2017 PLP 2484 (YLR)
TAHIR AZAM — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2017 PLP 2484 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar (Mingora Bench) |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Younis Thaheem, J |
| Parties | TAHIR AZAM — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 2484 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 2484 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar (Mingora Bench) bench comprising: Muhammad Younis Thaheem, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 2484 (YLR) (TAHIR AZAM — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Amir Gulab Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Explosive Substances Act (XXV of 2013), S. 5
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S.15-AA
Making or possession of explosive under suspicious circumstances, unlicensed possession of arms and terrorism
Prosecution, during search of the shop of petitioner recovered four grenades, cartridges of different bores along with other arms and ammunition
Court while deciding bail application, had to make tentative assessment of the case
Petitioner was connected with the commission of offence as his father himself admitted the ownership of shop, wherefrom the alleged explosive substance was recovered
Nothing was available on record to suggest that petitioner had any ill-will or enmity with the local police to which, he was falsely involved in the case
Recovery of explosive substance was fully supported by marginal witnesses of recovery memo
Offence with which the petitioner was charged fell in the ambit of prohibitory clause of S. 497(1) Cr.P.C.
Accused could not make out a prima facie case for bail
Bail was refused, accordingly. Sabir Shah, A.A.G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YOUNIS THAHEEM, J.
Petitioner Tahir Azam seeks bail in case FIR No. 431 dated 16.7.2016, under sections 5 Explosive Substances Act and 15AA, registered at Police Station Drosh Chitral, as the concession of bail was refused to him by the learned lower Court vide its order dated 28.7.2016.
2. As per contents of the FIR, the local police raided at the shop of accused/petitioner and during search recovered 4 grenades, cartridges of different bores along with other arms and ammunition.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner is directly charged in the FIR and huge quantity of explosive substance i.e. four (4) grenades etc were recovered from the shop run by him and his father, in which respect, he failed to furnish any plausible explanation. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner has any ill-will or enmity with the local police due to which he was falsely involved in the instant case. The recovery of explosive substance i.e. grenades etc is fully supported by the marginal witnesses and the petitioner failed to make prima facie case in his favour, so, tentatively is connected with commission of offence, as his father himself admitted the ownership of shop, wherefrom the alleged grenades etc were recovered. Moreover, the offence with which the petitioner is charged falls under the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C., as punishment provided therein is given below:-- Section 5 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Explosive Substances Act, 2013. Punishment for making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances.-- Any person who makes or knowingly has in his possession or under his control any explosive substance, under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he is not making it or does not have it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object, shall, unless he can show that he made it or had it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years.
5. Besides, complete challan has been submitted, so, any further findings on merit might prejudice the case of either party during trial, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to the grant of bail at this stage.
6. In view of the above, the petition for the grant of bail being meritless stands dismissed. JK/299/P Petition dismissed.