YLR 2012

2012 YLR 2352 (PLP)

THE STATE through Advocate General Khyber Bakhtunkhwa — Petitioner Versus ABDUL SATTAR — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Peshawar
Decided Date
B.C.A./Cr.M. No.32-D of 2012, decided on 5th March, 2012. .
Honorable Judges
Qaiser Rashid Khan, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2012 YLR 2352 (PLP)
Forum / Court Peshawar
Bench Members Qaiser Rashid Khan, J
Parties THE STATE through Advocate General Khyber Bakhtunkhwa — Petitioner Versus ABDUL SATTAR — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 YLR 2352 (PLP)?

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 YLR 2352 (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Qaiser Rashid Khan, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 YLR 2352 (PLP) (THE STATE through Advocate General Khyber Bakhtunkhwa — Petitioner Versus ABDUL SATTAR — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Muhammad Imran Gandapur for Petitioner.
  • THE STATE through Advocate General Khyber Bakhtunkhwa---Petitioner
  • QAISER RASHID KHAN, J.---The State through. Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, has filed this application under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. for the cancellation of bail granted to the accused/ respondent Abdul Sattar by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, D.I.Khan vide order dated 21-12-2011 in case F.I.R. No.272 dated 14-10-2011 under sections 4/5 Explosive Substances Act/13 A.O of Police Station Dera Town, D.I.Khan.

Headnotes / Summary

Ss. 497(5) & 497(2)

West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13

Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), Ss.4 & 5

Possession of illegal weapons, attempt to cause explosion or making or keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property, making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances

Application for cancellation of bail

Further inquiry

Perusal of . F.LR. revealed' that raid was conducted on the house of .the accused on 14-10-2011 and he was arrested on the same day

Clippings of two local Urdu newspapers dated 6-10-2011 , i.e. , eight days prior to the registration of the F.I.R., revealed details of the F.I.R. verbatim, which formed the basis of the case against the accused

Prima facie the police in a bid to show greater degree of efficiency had gone an extra mile while lodging the F.I.R. but in the process was caught on the wrong foot

Accused appeared to have been nabbed first and charged afterwards, which made the matter one of further inquiry

Bail granted by Trial Court was unexceptionable and did not call for any interference

Application for cancellation of bail was dismissed, in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

QAISER RASHID KHAN, J.

The State through. Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, has filed this application under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. for the cancellation of bail granted to the accused/ respondent Abdul Sattar by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, D.I.Khan vide order dated 21-12-2011 in case F.I.R. No.272 dated 14-10-2011 under sections 4/5 Explosive Substances Act/13 A.O of Police Station Dera Town, D.I.Khan.

2. The precise facts of the instant case as per F.I.R. are that S.H.O. Dera Town reported that on 14-10-2011 at 1500 hours, on the report of informer under the charge of DSPs City, Kulachi and Headquarter along with police party, a search operation was conducted in the hope of arresting proclaimed offender Imran Gandapur, involved in various cases of sectarianism and terrorism as well as members of his gang and in this regard they raided the house of accused/respondent and found there a rocket launcher, 6 rounds of rocket launcher, gun powder weighing one kilogram, prima wire five feet long, which were allegedly kept for some terrorist designs, hence the ibid F.I.R. was chalked out.

3. Learned State counsel submitted that the accused/respondent is a member of a terrorist gang of Imran Gandapur and the latter is involved in several cases of target killings and is a proclaimed offender; that a huge quantity of arms and ammunitions were recovered from the house search of accused/respondent for which he could not furnish any valid licence or permit; that the learned lower court has wrongly relied on newspaper publications of two Urdu dailies while granting bail to the accused/ respondent and the said order be set aside and the accused/respondent be directed to be taken into custody.

4. Arguments heard in limine and record perused.

5. As per the F.I.R., the S.H.O. Police Station, Dera Town reported that on 14-10-2011 at 1500 hours under the charge of DSP City, DSP Kulachi and DSP Headquarter, a raid was conducted to nab the proclaimed offender Imran Gandapur involved in several cases of sectarianism and terrorism and in this respect the house of accused/respondent Abdul Sattar was searched where they found arms and ammunitions and he was apprehended on the spot. Thus the entire proceedings as per the F.I.R. were conducted on 14-10-2011 and the accused/respondent was arrested on the same very day. However, the clippings of two newspapers of local Urdu dailies available on file reveal an altogether different story as the details of the F.I.R. were reported verbatim, albeit on 6-10-2011 i.e., eight days prior to the registration of the very F.I.R. which forms the basis of the case against the accused/respondent. In this respect I have also gone through the impugned order where the learned Additional Session Judge-IV, D.I.Khan has taken serious view of the manner in which the S.H.O. Police Station Dera Town namely Saif-ur-Rahman has given false information/evidence regarding the commission of the alleged offence and even ordered for proceedings against the said S.11.0. Without commenting upon the said part of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, D.I.Khan, suffice it to say that prima facie the police in a bid to show greater degree of efficiency has gone an extra' mile while lodging the F.I.R. but in the process caught on the wrong foot. It appears that the accused/respondent was firstly nabbed and charged afterwards, which safely take the matter to one of further inquiry and rightly done so by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, D.I. Khan in the impugned order which is unexceptionable and does not call for any interference.

6. Consequently, I find no substance in this bail cancellation application which is accordingly dismissed in limine.

7. Before parting with this order, it is clarified that any observations made in this order are only for the disposal of the instant application and should in no way prejudice the proceedings before the trial Court where the case be decided on its own merits after recording evidence. MWA/93/P????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Application dismissed.