Ehsanullah v. State,

PCrLJ 2012 1431Balochistan High CourtCriminal Law2012

Bench: Ghulam Mustafa Mengal

Share on WhatsApp
2012 P Cr. L J 1431 [Balochistan] Before Ghulam Mustafa Mengal, J EHSANULLAH and another ---Applicants Versus THE STATE ---Respondent Criminal Bail Application No.39 of 2 011, decided on 19th April, 2012. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) --- ----S. 497 ---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13 -E---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), Ss. 4 & 5 ---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7 ---Possession of illega l weapons, attempt to cause explosion or for making or keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property, making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances, acts of terrorism ---Bail, refusal of ---Plea of minority ---Heinousness of the offence ---Effect --- Police raided a house and apprehended the accused and co -accused on whose alleged pointation hand grenades, detonators and time pencils were recovered from the said house --- Contention of the accused and co -accused were that requirements of S.103, Cr.P.C., had not been met and the search was made without search warrants, and that the accused and co - accused were minors ---Validity ---Minority was not the sole consideration for purposes of grant of bail in heinous offences as each case had to be considered in the light of its own facts ---Age of the accused and co -accused and the question of compliance with S.103, Cr.P.C., was yet to be determined by the Trial Court ---Offences with which the accused and co-accused were charged were heinous in n ature and fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. ---Sufficient material was available to connect the accused and co -accused with the offences ---Bail application of the accused and co -accused was dismissed, in circumstances. Kamran Murtaza f or Applicants. Haji Liaqaut Ali for the State. Date of hearing: 12th April, 2011. ORDER GHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, J. ---The applicants Ehsanullah and Khairullah both sons of Abdul Rasheed seek bail in Crime No.3 of 2011 lodged by complainant Muhammad Aslam Bangulzai, IP/SHO, with Police Station, Gwadar on 4 -1-2011 with the averments that on the said date, he along with his subordinates was patrolling in Official Vehicle at about 12-15 p.m. he received spy information that the applicants who are residing in the house of Abdul Rasheed are having explosive substance and ammunitions intends to commit target killing and terrorist activities. On getting the said information the complainant along with other Police officials under the supervision of D.P.O, S.P. Investigation and D.S.P, City, A.T.F. officials, Lady Constables, District Police Official and B.C. Officials under section 165, Cr.P.C. raided the said house, where applicants and one Haji Nasir were found present who were apprehended and on the pointatio n of applicants two handgrenades, 36 detonators and time pencils were recovered from the guest room and, one Revolver along with seven live cartridges on pointation of Master Haji Nasir from his room. On demand they could not produce license of recovered a rms, which were secured under the mashirnama in presence of mashirs, the applicants were arrested and F.I.R. was lodged against them and Haji Nasir under sections 4/5 of Explosive Substances Act, read with section 7, A.T.A. and 13 -E, Arms Ordinanc e. A bail application was moved before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gawadar who after hearing the parties rejected the same vide order dated 3 -2-2011, hence this bail application. Mr. Kamran Murtaza, learned counsel for the applicants contended that the requirements of section 103, Cr.P.C. have not been made and search, was made without search warrant. He further contended that both the applicants are minors, thus, requested that the applicants be released on bail. Haji Liaquat Ali, learned Stat e counsel has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that substantial evidence is available against the applicants, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of bail. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. The allegations against the applicants are that two handgrenades, detonators and time pencil were recovered on their disclosure and pointation from their guest room. For the purposes of grant of bail in heinous offences mino rity is not sole consideration because each case has to be considered in the light of its own facts. The age of the applicants and non - compliance of section 103, Cr.P.C. is yet to be determined by the trial Court. Since the offences with which the applican ts are involved are heinous and falls within the prohibitory Clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Sufficient material to prima facie connect the applicants with the heinous offence is available on record, therefore, the applicants do not deserve the concession o f bail at this stage. Resultantly their bail application having no merit is dismissed. However the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within period of three months from the receipt of this order. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall have no bearing on merits of the case. M.W.A./41/Q Bail dismissed.
This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error, let us know.

Related judgments

Re-Investigation can be permitted under special circumstances

PLJ 2020 · Balochistan High Court · 2020

Importance of 342 Statement in a Criminal Trial

PLJ 2018 SC 453 · Balochistan High Court · 2018

Prosecution must establish that chain of custody was unbroken, unsuspicious, indubitable, safe and secure

PLJ 2018 SC (Cr.C.) 90 · Balochistan High Court · 2018

Domicile and Residence Certificate are different

PLJ 2013 · Balochistan High Court · 2013

Pakistan - The Registration Act 1908

Balochistan High Court · 2012