1998 P Cr (PLP)

Ghulam Muhammad Durrani for Applicant (in Criminal Bail Application No.701 of 1997). Manzoor Ahmed Junejo for Applicant (in Criminal Bail Applications Nos.779 and 852 of 1997). Mumtaz Ali Siddiqui for Applicant (in Criminal Bail Application No.828 of 1997). Mumtaz Ali Moghul for Applicant (in Criminal Bail Application No.860 of 1997). Amanullah G. Malik for Applicant (in Criminal Bail Application No.752 of 1997). Abdul Ghafoor Pirzada for Applicant (in Criminal Bail Application No.964 of 1997). Khawand Bux Mahar for Applicant (in Criminal Bail Application No.1001 of 1997). Syed Aijaz Ali Shah for Applicant (in Criminal Bail Application No.26 of 1998). Abdul Sattar Chohan for A.A.‑G. for the State. By this common order these 20 bail applications are being decided as all the applications contain common point for decision. Mainly in all the cases the applicants are charged with being found in possession of unlicensed arms although the nature of the arms vary in each case but the common point in all these cases on the basis of which the applicants were refused bail by the trial Court was that in view of Ordinance No XCVIII of 1996 the offence committed by all the applicants in the above bail applications was punishable with imprisonment for life and, therefore, their case was covered by the prohibitory clause of section, 497, Cr.P.C: and consequently their request for bail was turned down. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties I have come to the conclusion that the said Ordinance which was initially promulgated in 1996 and was lastly repromulgated on 7‑3‑1997 lived its life up to 7‑7‑1997 and thereafter it was neither repromulgated nor the said Ordinance was placed before the Legislature for turning into an Act. Thus, the said Ordinance had lapsed. The result of the lapsing of the said Ordinance was that its provisions were no more in force and consequently in case of all the applicants in these bail applications the same was not applicable. Consequentially the cases of the applicants were covered by section 13 of the Arms Ordinance (No. XX of 1965) and the maximum punishment under the said Ordinance was seven years. Majority of the applicants in the above applications have remained in jail for a period of 10/I1 months and some of them even beyond 12 months and the cases have not yet proceeded and there are no immediate prospects of their cases coming to an end due to heavy work‑load in the Courts. Thus, the cases of the applicants are not covered by the prohibitory clause and, therefore, the grant of bail should be a rule and the rejection an exceptions. No exception in any of the cases was made out so that their request for bail be turned down. On the contrary, learned counsel for the A.A.‑G. conceded to the grant of bail to all the applicants. In these circumstances, I am of the view that each of the applicants in the above applications is entitled to be released on bail. Consequently, these applications are allowed and each applicant is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 (fifty thousand) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. H.B.T./E‑10/K Bail granted.