2012 PLP 828 (MLD)
KHALID KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE through S.H.O., Tarnol — Respondent
| Citation | 2012 PLP 828 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Islamabad |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHALID KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE through S.H.O., Tarnol — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 828 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 828 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Islamabad bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 828 (MLD) (KHALID KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE through S.H.O., Tarnol — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Laiq Khan Swati for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13
Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), Ss. 3 & 4
Possession of illegal weapons, causing explosion likely to endanger life or property, attempt to cause explosion or for making or keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property, acts of terrorism
F.I.R. suggested that police was not certain about the nature of the substance and illicit use of the same in any explosive device
Report of investigative authorities was not indicative of any adverse findings
Substance sample sent to laboratory could not be analyzed, as testing facility of the substance was not available with any laboratory, but same would not disentitle the accused from the grant of bail as it brought the case within the parameters and scope of further inquiry
Bail application of accused was accepted and he was admitted to bail.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AZIM KHAN AFRIDI, J.--Accused/petitioner Khalid Khan is seeking post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 420 dated 27-9-2011, registered under section 13 of Arms Ordinance, 1965, and 3/4 of Explosive Act, Police Station Tarnol, Islamabad.
2. According to the report, police party headed by Sher Ahmad Khan, S.-I. Intercepted two vehicles bearing registration No.LHT-136 and ST-350-ICT. The accused/petitioner driving vehicle No.ST-350-ICT was arrested when, after search of the vehicle, five cylinders containing material resembling calcium, hydrogen, phosphorus were recovered from the vehicle which material was usable in preparation of explosive devices.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that contents of F.I.R. are indicative of the fact that the substance allegedly recovered from the vehicle driven by the accused/petitioner was not exactly a substance which was usable in explosive devices. He referred to the report of expert and argued that the same was not identified as a substance usable in explosive devices. He also referred to another report sought by the prosecution from Wah Industry Ltd. wherein it was opined that testing facility of the subject sample was not available with the said organization. He argued that no case against the accused/petitioner is made out by the Investigating Officer.
4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the State argued that the accused/petitioner was caught red handed while transporting 8 Kg substance usable in explosive devices. That the report of the laboratory cannot be taken into account as the sample was not analyzed which would not entitle the accused/petitioner to the grant of bail in such a heinous crime.
5. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties heard and record perused.
6. The very contents of F.I.R. suggests that the police party was not certain about the nature of substance and illicit use of the same in any explosive device. Report of expert of Counter Terrorism Wing, FIA dated 1-1-2011 is not indicative of any adverse findings. Though the report of organization of Wah Industry Limited dated 12-10-2011 was not ascertained due to non-existence of any laboratory having such facility yet the same would not disentitle the accused/petitioner from the grant of bail rather such eventuality would bring the case of the accused/petitioner within the parameters and scope of "further inquiry".
7. In view of the above, bail application of the accused/petitioner is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds to the tune of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. M.W.A./50/Isl Bail granted.