2012 PLP 801 (MLD)
AKBAR ZADA — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2012 PLP 801 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AKBAR ZADA — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 801 (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 801 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh 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 801 (MLD) (AKBAR ZADA — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13-D
Complainant (police official) upon receipt of spy information, apprehended the accused while in possession of weapons
Contention of accused that he had been implicated falsely after weapons were foisted on him, and that there was violation of Ss. 4, 104 and 156 of Cr.P.C and the arresting agency did not follow the Police Rules, 1934
Accused was arrested while in possession of and/or carrying the weapons for which he had no explanation except for the contention that the weapons were dumped by workers of political parties which had nothing to do with him
Accused had been arrested on complaint of crime branch of police, which made recovery of the weapons and therefore, was competent in law to lodge the complaint at the police station concerned
Accused had failed to make out a case for bail and therefore, his bail application was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SALMAN HAMID, J.
Applicant, who is presently confined in Malir Jail, Karachi is booked for offences punishable under section 13-D Arms Ordinance, under F.I.R. No.206 of 2011 of Police Station Baldia Town, Karachi, (F.I.R.).
2. Facts, deducible from the F.I.R. are that complainant SIP Altaf Hussain, Crime Branch-1, Karachi, upon spy information apprehended the applicant with large number of weapons.
3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that he is innocent and has been implicated falsely after foisting weapons on him who otherwise is a guard in a factory where workers of two political parties dumped the above weapons with which the applicant has nothing to do. On legal plain it was argued that there was violation of sections 4, 103 and 156 Cr.P.C. and that the arresting agency did not follow the Police Rules, 1934. It was also argued that the applicant is a kidney patient and is suffering from such ailment acutely.
4. Bail application was resisted and opposed by the learned State counsel. It was argued that question of foisting of such large number of weapons worth of which was substantial does not arise and that the police had no enmity with the applicant. It was also mentioned that the F.I.R. was lodged by Police Station Baldia and therefore, there was no violation of sections 4 and 156 of Cr.P.C. Combating the arguments of section 103, Cr.P.C. it was mentioned that such provision of law comes into play with regard to search of a place; whereas in the present case, the applicant was found carrying the weapons from one place to another in a bag.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned State counsel and have gone through the file and police paper.
6. It is clear from the file and the police paper that the applicant was arrested inaction and was found possessing and/or carrying the weapons to which he had no explanation except what has been built up by his counsel in the bail application. As far as the alleged violation of various sections of Cr.P.C. are concerned, suffice to mention that it has come on record that the applicant was arrested by complaint of Crime Branch-I, Karachi and made recovery of weapons and therefore, he was competent in law to lodge complaint at the police station concerned. F.I.R. was lodged by Police Station Baldia Town. In this view of the matter the applicant has failed to make out any case for bail and therefore, application is dismissed. M.W.A./A-28/K Bail refused.