2015 P Cr. L J 852
[Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Noor Meskanzai and Muhammad Kamran Mulakhail, JJ
ABDUL REHMAN KEHTRAN---Applicant
versus
The STATE---Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No. 36 of 2014, decided on 3rd June, 2014.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----S. 497--- Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(b) ---Explosive Substances Act (VI of
1908), Ss.4 & 5---Possessing unlicensed arms, recovery of illicit arms, ammunitions and
explosive ---Bail, refusal of ---Huge quanti ty of illicit arms, ammunitions and explosives were
recovered from the house of accused where he was present at the time of raid ---Neither any
defence was introduced nor the alleged recovery of arms and ammunitions was denied by
accused ---Prosecution case, in circumstances, carried sufficient evidence against accused ---
Accused, the detainees and the eye- witnesses were present at the time of raid, and their
statements were recorded promptly ---Question of further inquiry would not arise, in
circumstances --- Accused was member of the Provincial Assembly and was also member of a
political party, which remained in power for reasonable time in the Province, it was not possible,
in circumstances that local residents of his town, despite being police personnel would falsely
depose against accused ---Accused was involved in a series of criminal cases and remained
fugitive from law, but nobody in the hierarchy of District Administration and District Police
dared to arrest him ---Possibility of false implication of accuse d, absolutely did not arise; and
prima facie reasonable evidence was available on case file which disentitled accused to be
admitted to bail---Alleged offences, were not bailable and fell within the ambit of prohibitory
clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Accused h ad failed to make out a case for grant of bail ---Bail
application of accused, was dismissed, in circumstances.
Kamran Murtaza, Manzoor Ahmed Rehmani and Tahir Ali Baloch for Applicant.
Sultan Mehmood, Special Prosecutor for the State.
Date of hearing: 12th May, 2014.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD KAMRAN KHAN MULAKHAIL, J. ---The applicant seeks bail in FIR
No.6 of 2014 registered with Barkhan Police Station, on the complaint of Syed Aman Shah
ASI/SHO under section 13- B of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 read with sections 4 and 5 of the
Explosive Substances Act, 1908 on the averment that on 12- 1-2014 at about 7- 30 a.m. for
causing arrest of the applicant and other unknown accused persons in connection with FIR
3/2014 under sections 395, 342, 353, 337 -DF, 147, 148, 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code read
with section 7(h) of the Anti -Terrorism Act, 1997, the bungalow of the applicant was raided,
where in a godown the following arms and ammunitions wer e recovered: --
(1) 12.7 MMAA Gun round Total=1028 rounds
(2) Dangar gun rounds Total= 13600 rounds.
(3) 20 MM round Total= 55 rounds.
(4) 75 inner Gaheed Grenade Total= 229 rounds.
(5) Rounds different SMG/LMG Total= 2665
(6) Empty Kohle bullet Total=115
(7) RR4/7 -40MM rocket Launchers Total=57 Golay
(8) 81 MMM Mortar Golay Total=10 Golay
(9) RPG -40 MM rocket Launchers fuse Total= 71 fuse
(10) Missile 4 ft Total= 02
(11) SPG-9 RR gun with stand Total=01
(12) LMG china gun Total= 02
(13) 20 MM Anti air craft gun with stand Total= 03
(14) SMG china Magazine loaded Total= 120 rounds
(15) Hand Grenade 75/H4 Total= 03 Boxes
(16) Door Been Recovered (Telescope) Total= 01
(17) 81 MM Mortar Stand Total= 01
(18) Empty Pochesis SMG China/G3 Total= 20
Prior to instant application an application for grant of bail was turned down vide order
dated 16th April, 2014 passed by the Special Judge Anti -Terrorism Court Loralai.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant has no concern with the
alleged place of detention described as bungalow of Abdur Rehman because neither the land
underneath the said bungalow is on his name nor he was present at the time of r aid. He stated
that no such arms and ammunitions were recovered from the house of the applicant; therefore, he
cannot be vicariously liable for alleged illicit arms and ammunitions. The learned counsel further
contended that irrespective of the merits of t he case the alleged offences are either bailable or do
not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. He contended that
investigation in the case has already been completed and the applicant has been committed to
judicial custody a nd no more required for further investigation. He added that applicant is an
elected member of the provincial assembly of the District Barkhan and the possibility of his false
implication cannot be ruled out due to politically motivated objects. Therefore, the applicant's
case falls within the ambit of further inquiry and he is entitled to be admitted to bail.
3. Mr. Sultan Mehmood, the learned Special Prosecutor has strongly opposed the plea of
bail and stated that offences committed by the applicant are non-bailable in nature. The
recovered arms and ammunitions have fully established the case of illicit arms against the
applicant. The statements of witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. are evident of the fact
that the applicant is involved in a heinous crime, which is punishable under the Act, therefore, he
is not entitled to be admitted to bail.
4. The learned counsel for the respective parties were heard at length and record was also
perused with their valuable assistance. The record clearly m anifests that at the time of raid
applicant was present at his home, who was arrested on the spot, which fact is supported by
memo. of personal search compiled in the connected FIR No.5 of 2014 dated 12- 1-2014,
therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was not
present at the place of recovery, has no substance. The record further reveals that during the raid
a huge quantity of illicit arms ammunitions and explosives were recovered from the said
bungalow. In additi on to recovery of illicit arms the statements of witnesses were also recorded
under section 161, Cr.P.C. Therefore, at this juncture it can safely be concluded that neither any
defense was introduced nor the alleged recovery of arms and ammunitions was cat egorically
denied by the applicant. Therefore, the prosecution case carries sufficient evidence against the
applicant.
In the instant case, the accused, the detainees and the eye -witnesses were present at the
time of raid and their statements were recor ded promptly, therefore, the question of further
inquiry absolutely does not arise. The contention of learned counsel also does not have any
substance, because the alleged offences are not bailable and fall within the ambit of prohibitory
clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Therefore, on this score too the applicant has failed to make out a
case for grant of bail.
5. It is worthwhile to add here that the applicant is a member of the Provincial Assembly
and is also a member of a political party, which remained in power for reasonable time in the
province. Therefore, it is not possible that local residents of his town despite being police
personnel would falsely depose against him. The applicant is involved in a series of criminal
cases and remained fugitive of l aw but nobody in the hierarchy of District Administration and
District Police dared to arrest him, who during this while also remained in power being member
of the treasury benches.
We are mindful of the fact that the plea adopted by the applicant can s afely be termed as
a unique example of its kind, whereby the applicant has moved three bail applications, arising
out of three different cases, whereby on one hand he denied the ownership of bungalow in
question in connected Criminal Bail Applications Nos.35, 37 and 38 of 2014 and thereby
categorically denied any sort of responsibility towards the recovery of detainees, the recovery of
huge quantity of arms, ammunition and explosives, but on the other he claimed ownership of the
vehicles recovered from the same bungalow. The stance pleaded in three different connected
applications and in a quashment petition cannot be overlooked; thus, the applicant is not entitled
for the relief claimed herein.
Therefore, possibility of his false implication absolutely d oes not arise and prima facie
reasonable evidence is available on case file, which disentitles the applicant to be admitted to
bail.
In view of above reasons the application is dismissed.
However, the observations made herein are tentative in nature, which shall have no
bearings on the merits of the case.
HBT/31/Bal. Bail refused.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.