' MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J. Applicant is booked in Crime No,77 of 2011, under section 13(d) Arms Ordinance registered at Police Station Daulatpur. Initially, the applicant applied for bail before learned trial Court, who dismissed the bail application per order dated 18-8-2011 and against the aforesaid order present bail application has been filed.
2. The facts of the prosecution case as per F.I.R, are that on 8-7-2011 at about 2330 hours SIP/S.H.O.
Muhammad Sulleman Wagan of Police Station Daulatpur lodged his report on behalf of the State stating therein that during patrolling he apprehended the accused, who was coming on motorcycle and was having Kalashnikov. The complainant secured one unlicensed Kalashnikov loaded with a magazine containing 25 bullets, one black coloured Motorcycle No,Nil, Model 2010 of Super Star Company and cash Rs,200 from the possession of the accused. It is claimed that the applicant was arrested and booked under section 13(d) Arms Ordinance.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of the bail application, has submitted that a series of false F.I.Rs, has been registered against the present applicant and other servants of Sardar Jan Muhammad Dahri, who is also master of the applicant. He says that sitting Government has political rivalry with the said Sardar Jan Muhammad Dahri. He further says that present applicant was booked in as many as 5 criminal cases prior to the present one. Learned counsel submits that in two cases applicant has already been acquitted by the Courts whereas, in other three cases he has been enlarged on bail. He further submits that even otherwise involvement of a person in a criminal case does not disentitle him to apply for bail. Learned counsel contends that no private witness at the time of arrest and recovery was associated and provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C, were violated. He further contends that applicant, is booked in a crime, which falls under non- prohibitory clause and maximum punishment for such offence as provided is only three years. He also contends that investigation is complete and the matter has been challaned and police does not need the applicant for any investigation purpose.
4. On the other hand, learned A.P.G. Has supported the order passed by the learned trial Court and has submitted that bail application was rejected by learned trial Court for the reason that the applicant is a habitual offender. He says that the applicant may not be enlarged on bail, as there is likelihood of commission of similar offence by him.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
6. From the perusal of record it appears that the case of the applicant falls under non-prohibitory clause. It is also an admitted position that challan of the case has been submitted. In the previous two criminal cases applicant has already been acquitted and in three other cases he has been enlarged on bail by the trial Courts. The absence of private witness at the time of arrest and recovery makes the case of prosecution doubtful and it is yet to be decided at the trial as to whether applicant has been falsely implicated with this case or the recovery effected from him or not. This case, in my view, requires further enquiry. Accordingly, the applicant is admitted to bail on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,100,000 (One Lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.