1. ' MAQBOOL BAQAR, J.---The applicants had filed the above applications for grant of bail in Crime No. 56 of 2006, registered at Police Station A Section, Nawabshah for offences under sections 3 and 4, Explosives Act, section 7 Anti-Terrorism Act read with section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance and in connected Crime Nos. 57 of 2006, 58 of 2006, 59 of 2006, 60 of 2006 and 61 of 2006.
2. ' According to the prosecution the applicants were apprehended, while they were travelling in a car, without any number plate and were found carrying unlicenced weapons. The applicant No.1, was said to be carrying a Klashinikov, two magazines of Klashinikov, with 60 bullets, one Bandoli, and two hand-grenades. The applicant No.2 was said to be carrying a Klashinikov, one Bandoli, two magazines of Klashinikov and 60 bullets. Applicant No.3, was said to be carrying a 223 bore Rifle, one Bandoli, three magazines, and 90 bullets. Applicant No.4 was allegedly carrying a Klashinikov, two magazines, 60 bullets and one Bandoli and from Applicant No.5, recovery of a Klashinikov, one magazine, 60 bullets and one Bandoli is claimed. It is alleged that after the applicant; car was stopped another car carrying four persons also reached the spot,out of whom Muhammad Farooq Jatt and Hamal Rind were appointed mashirs of recovery and arrest. It is also alleged that after the police party has disembarked the applicants, from their car, their companion who was driving the car was asked by the police to park the car aside, but he drove away. It is claimed that none of the arms, recovered bore any number. However, all the four kilashinikovs and the rifle bore the inscription "Sardar Geay Sher Muhammad Rind".
3. ' Mr. Raja Qureshi, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant/accused No.1 and the other applicants/accused who are the bodyguards of applicant No.1 have been falsely implicated, at the behest of the elder brother of applicant No. 1, namely Sardar Yar Muhammad Rind, who is a Federal Minister, to pressurize the applicant and to dispossess him from his agricultural land measuring 1200 acres, situated in Deh Nasarat, Taluka Nawabshah. He submitted that there, is a coerce longstanding dispute between the two brothers over the said land and Sardar Yar Muhammad Rind has since long been trying to pressurize the applicant No.1 to surrender the land in his favour and a number of false cases have been registered against the applicants No.1, which are pending. However, in one such case, where the applicant was falsely charged for possessing unlicenced weapons being Crime No.2/2000, the applicant has been acquitted by the IIIrd Judicial Magistrate, Shikarpur. The learned counsel submitted that the true facts of the matter are that on 28-3-2006, the date of the alleged incident, TPO Saddar, Nawabshah requested the applicant No.1 on telephone to join him in his office over a cup of tea, but since the applicant No.1, was unwell and his transport was also not available, he showed his reluctance. However the TPO insisted and sent two cars driven by Muhammad Farooq and Hamal, the mashirs in the present case, for the applicant to come to the TPO's office, and thus when the applicant No. 1, along with his guards reached the TPO, office, the TPO, tried to persuade the applicant No. I to hand over the possession of the aforesaid land to Sardar Yar Muhammad Rind and on applicant No.1's refusal, threatened him of dire consequences, and as the TPO failed to coerce and intimidate him into submission. The TPO through his subordinates and the said.
4. Muhammad Farooq snatched from the applicant No. 1 and his guards, their liccnced weapons, cash and cellular phones, arrested them and falsely implicated them in the present case. The learned counsel referred to a copy of a complaint filed by applicant No.1, against the TPO, his subordinate and Muhamn'.d Farooq and Hamal before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Nawabshah (anuexure `D'), and submitted that the same contains the details of the incident and the particulars of the licensed weapons and mobile phones that were snatched. The learned counsel submitted that applicant No. 1 owns three U.S. Made .223 rifles and a 9 mm Bretta pistol and referred to the photocopies of such are licences and a certificate, annexed to the bailapplication and submitted the applicant was in no need to carry unlicensed weapons. The learned counsel submitted that the prosecution story is a sheer concoction as both the mashirs of recovery and arrest are the henchmen of Sardar Yar Muhammad Rind, in this regard, he referred to a photocopy of a special Power of Attorney executed by Sardar Yar Muhammad Rind in favour of mashir, Muhammad Farooq son of Ghulam Nabi Jat, and pointed out that the other mashir namely, Hamal Khan son of Jan Muhammad Rind is one of the attesting witnesses to the said document. The learned counsel submitted that Sardar Yar Muhammad Rind having failed in his earlier attempt to coerce and intimidate the applicant No.1 into surrendering possession of his land, has by misusing his status of a, Federal Minister, and m connivance with the TPO Saddar, Nawabshah, has falsely implicated the applicants in the present case. He referred to a copy of the Provincial (Ombudsman) Mohtasib, Balochistan's order, dated 7-9-2005, which shows that a complaint earlier filed by the applicant No.1, before the Provincial Ombudsman against Sardar Yar Muhammad Rind, seeking the following relief, has on 25-6-2005, been dismissed by the learned Mohtasib for want of jurisdiction:-
(1) That I may kindly be provided necessary protection as I, my family and my men apprehended danger to our life at the hands of my brother Sardar Yar Muhammad Rind.
(2) That Sardar Yar Muhammad Rind be directed to give my share in the property.
(3) That Sardar Yar Muhammad Rind be given rein and he be refrained from implicating me and my men in false cases.
(4) That independent enquiry be conducted by honest and independent officers of the affairs.
(5) That Sardar Yar Muhammad Rind is taking undue advantage of his Ministership and as such he be removed from the seat of Federal Minister.
5. ' The learned counsel submitted that the arms and ammunitions allegedly recovered from the applicants were not sealed at the time of the alleged recovery and that, though according to the prosecution all the recovered arms bore the inscription "Geay Sardar Sher Muhammad Rind", however, the Arms Expert Report does not mention that any such inscription was found by him on the weapons. He further submitted that the hand-grenades allegedly recovered from the applicant No.1 were not sent to the Ballistic Expert to ascertain as to whether the same wereserviceable, and were instead destroyed by the Police, after about 20 days of the alleged recovery and that too without any notice to theapplicant or his counsel. He submitted that even the remains of the purported hand-grenades have not been preserved by the prosecution. The other anomaly pointed out by the counsel was that the arms/ explosive expert has not been cited by the prosecution as a witness. He submitted that since the investigation has been concluded and the prosecution has submitted challan against the applicants before the trial Court, the applicant's arc no more required for investigation. He urged that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant may be released on bail.
6. ' On the other hand, Mr. Masood A. Noorani, the learned Additional Advocate-General vehemently opposed the applications. He submitted that the contents of the F.I.R. Have been fully corroborated by the eye-witnesses in their statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. The Expert Report has verified the fact that the recovered arms are automatic and are fully functional. With regard to the destruction of the hand-grenades. He submitted that since chemicals were leaking out from the hand-grenade and the ballistic expert had opined that the hand-grenades might explode any time. The complainant, S.H.O., Police Station A-Section, Nawabshah, submitted a report to the above effect before the Sessions Judge, Nawabshah, who in view of the Expert Report allowed the request and permitted disposal of the two hand-grenades in presence of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Nawabshah and thus the grenades were destroyed at the Police Firing Range in the presence of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Nawabshah. The learned Additional Advocate- General referred to the mashirnama of destruction of the grenades duly signed by mashir, A.S.-I.
7. Khan Bahadur and counter signed by Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Nawabshah. He submitted that in terms of section 516-C, Cr.P.C., it is permissible to dispose of the case property during the inquiry or trial if such property is subject to speedy or natural decay and no notice to the accused is required before such disposal. The learned A.A.-G. Submitted that the sealing of weapons becomes essential only in a case where the weapon was used in the commission of crime and empties were secured from the wardat and in such a situation, the empties are also required to be sealed instantly and then both the properties are to be sent to the Ballistic Expert for examination so as to connect the empties with the weapon in order to prove that such weapon was used in the commission of the crime, otherwise the possibility of tampering with such incriminating material cannot be ruled out for the simple reason that after recovery of the weapon, empties can be manipulated by firing from the pistol for obtaining a positive report from the Ballistic Expert. However, in the present case, it is not alleged that the weapons were fired or that any empties were secured from the place of incident so as to connect the said weapon with the empties. He further submitted that possessingunlicenced arms and ammunition is an offence by itself and in that context there is no need for sealing the property instantly. The learned A.A.- G.Submitted that the applicants are notorious criminals and are wanted in a number of crimes of heinous nature.
8. ' Heard learned counsel and perused the record with their assistance.
9. ' The fact that both the mashirs of recovery and arrest, namely Muhammad Farooq son of Ghulam Nabi Jatt and Hamal son of Jan Muhammad Rind are associated with Sardar Yar Muhammad Rind, the elder brother of the Applicant No.1, the first one, as evident from the special Power of Attorney, dated 20-10-2005, (annexure 'K' to the bail application), being the attorney of Sardar Yar Muhammad Rind and the second being a witness to the execution of the said document, coupled with the fact that, (as evident from the copy of the afore-noted order of the Provincial Ombudsman), the Applicant No.1 and his brother Sardar Yar Muhammad Rind are inimical to each other and there is a dispute regarding possession of certain land between the two, creates doubt regarding the entire story of the arrest and recovery as put forth by the prosecution. Authenticity of the prosecution case is further jeopardized in view of the fact that though the recovered weapons did not bear any numbers but only bore the inscription "Geay Sardar Sher Muhammad A Rind" and as such, the said inscription was the only distinct identification of the weapons, but the Expert Report does not say that the weapons examined by him bore such inscription, and thus at this stage it is not certain as to whether the weapons sent to the Arms Expert were in fact the weapons allegedly recovered. Although admittedly the purported grenades were destroyed after about 20 days of recovery, however the same were not sent to the Ballistic Expert to verify as to whether the same in fact were hand-grenades and were serviceable, and as evident from the mashirnama of destruction of the grenade, even their remain were not preserved. It is also difficult to believe that the police party comprising of two S.H.Os. And their staff, would have allowed the driver of the car carrying the applicants to park the same aside, and thus the driver drove away the car, as claimed in the further more, no proper description of the car is given in the F.I.R., neither its make nor the model is disclosed.
10. ' It was in view of the foregoing that I found the applicants to be entitled to bail and by short order, dated 13-11-2006 admitted them to bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,10,00,000 each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.