P L D 2002 Peshawar 33 (PLP)
GOHAR ZAMAN (CORRECT NAME GOHAR MUNIR) — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2002 Peshawar 33 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GOHAR ZAMAN (CORRECT NAME GOHAR MUNIR) — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2002 Peshawar 33 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2002 Peshawar 33 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2002 Peshawar 33 (PLP) (GOHAR ZAMAN (CORRECT NAME GOHAR MUNIR) — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Dost Muhammad Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), Ss. 13/14-- Surrender of Illicit Arms Act (XXI of 1991), Ss.2(iv), (v) & 7
Illicit arms and ammunition allegedly recovered from the house of the accused did not fall within the ambit of S.2(iv) of Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991, but instead those were the type which would fall within the purview of S.2(v) of the said Act which was punishable with imprisonment which could extend to fourteen years
Extreme punishment could only be awarded when the antecedents of the accused so justified
Accused, thus, could not be awarded an extreme penalty in the absence of any such antecedents
Judgment & Decree
QAZI EHSANULLAH QURESHI, J.
For reasons to be recorded later, this application is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail in the sum of Rupees three lacs with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Ilaqa/Judicial Magistrate, who shall see that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means. EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.--The petitioner who is charged in a case registered against him under sections 13/14, Arms Ordinance read with section 7 of Illicit Arms Act vide F.I.R. No.459 dated 30-9-2001 of Police Station Cantt., D.I. Khan for having been found in possession of illicit arms and ammunition when failed to get the concession of bail from the lower forum has moved this Court for the same relief.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the police had prior information that the petitioner is keeping illicit arms and ammunition, they did not take along two respectable inhabitants of the locality to witness the search and that there is absolutely nothing on the record to show as to why the mandatory provision of section 103, Cr.P.C. providing for the conduct of search in presence of two respectable inhabitants of the locality was dispensed with.
3. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel contended that the search was conducted in presence of a local councillor, therefore, contention of the petitioner's counsel is not correct.
4. A perusal of the F.I.R. would reveal that the illicit arms and ammunition allegedly recovered from the house of the petitioner are not of the type as would fall within the ambit of section 2(iv) of the Illicit Arms Act, instead those are of the type which would fall within the ambit of section 2(v) of Act (ibid), which is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to fourteen years and the extreme punishment can only be awarded when the antecedents of the accused so justify. In the absence of any such antecedents, we doubt that the petitioner is likely to be awarded an extreme penalty.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we allow this application and admit the petitioner to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rupees three lacs with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Ilaqa/Judicial Magistrate; who shall see that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means. H.B.T./417/P Bail granted.