1. ' HASAN FEROZ, J.---By this order I intend to dispose of the instant bail application which has been moved on behalf of the applicant/accused Imran son of Ameer Bux in relation to the captioned crime registered at Gulshan-e-Iqbal Police Station, under section 23(1)(a) Sindh Arms Act, 2013.
2. Here I mention at the very outset that by a short order dated 21-3-2014 bail to the applicant/accused was allowed by this court subject to furnishing of surety for the sum of Rs,50,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court and my detailed order is as follows:-- ' In nutshell facts of the prosecution case are that on 27-8-2013 at 02:30 hours, SIP Qadir Bux of Gulshan-e-Iqbal Police Station along with his subordinates namely P.C. Sultan, P.C. Inam Hussain while busy in area patrolling in order to eradicate the crimes, he received credible information and so he reached at main Dhoraji Chowk, Block No,3, Gulshan-e-lqbal where he noticed one person who in inquiry disclosed his name to be Imran, who was searched in presence of subordinate officials due to non-availability of the witnesses from public and he from the nefa of his shalwar an un-numbered pistol of .30 bore with a loaded magazine containing four rounds recovered, for which he has failed to produce licence and so he was arrested under a mashirnama prepared and he was then brought at Gulshan-e-Iqbal Police Station where captioned F.I.R. Was lodged. Usual investigation was then conducted by A.S.-I. Rao Muhammad Aslam of same police station who filed the charge sheet before the court of law. An application for bail was moved on behalf of the applicant/accused before the learned trial court which was heard and dismissed by the learned trial court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge Karachi East vide impugned order dated 16-1-2014 and to the instant bail application was preferred.
3. ' Crux of the arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused is that it is a case of false involvement and planting of the weapon as according to him much earlier to the date of incident as shown the applicant/accused was in detention with the Rangers and it was pursuant to the completion of the detention period and since there was no evidence found against him, he was handed-over to the Gulshane-Iqbal Police where the police made demand of money, which since was not met as the applicant/accused is a poor labour, he was involved into this case.
4. He has contended that mens rea to commit the alleged offence is completely missing as there is no allegation against the applicant/ accused to even remotely suggest as to his being previously convicted or involved in any crime and so he has contended that there is no reason for the applicant/accused for keeping the alleged weapon with him and he has further contended that even the fateful night as well as per prosecution case he was shown to be standing till such time he was shown intercepted and then brought at Gulshan-e-Iqbal P.S. And there is no mention in the F.I.R. That he made any sort of resistance or even attempted to flee-away and so according to him in the circumstances false involvement for various obvious reasons on the part of the said police in no way can be ruled-out. He has further contended that no doubt Sindh Arms Act, 2013 was promulgated with specific intent and object but according to him the Arms Ordinance, 1965 to which has got the protection of Constitution of 1973 is still intact and rather such Act has got protection of Article 164 of the Constitution-I973 there it is not the sweet-will of the police to register the F.I.R. In the manner they desire to do so and he has further contended that the punishment so provided under the Act, 2013 is up to 14 years and by the use of word 'may' the legislature in its wisdom has left it open upon the trial court to award any suitable punishment if at trial the offence is proved and he has contended that by the use of word 14 years no clog has been put upon the courts not to grant bail but he has contended that in appropriate cases bail can be granted and the scope of further enquiry is wide enough and he has further contended that inordinate delay in sending the allegedly recovered weapon to the F.S.L. Also casts serious doubts coupled with the fact that no specific mark of identification was shown present on the alleged weapon to which is not believable. He has further contended that admittedly no private person was joined and there is also no mention in the F.I.R. As to whether any private person was found present and who avoided becoming witness and the notice under section 160 Cr.P.C. Was served upon him. He has further contended that now there are two versions before the court i,e, one by the prosecution as to alleged recovery of the unlicenced arms for which the mashirnama is without sketch of arm and suffers from infirmity and the other by accused who claimed his false involvement and his earlier detention by the Rangers and so according to him this ground in itself makes the prosecution case to be highly doubtful and so the matter calls for probe and pending trial the applicant/accused has made-out a case for grant of bail. He has further contended that the impugned order as passed by the learned trial court whereby the bail plea of the applicant/accused was declined is not sustainable in law and on facts. He has requested for release of the applicant/accused on bail, particularly when he is no more required to the police for any further investigation and challan in the case having been filed. Vehemently opposed the grant of bail and has contended that offence involved falls within the ambit of the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. As the punishment prescribed is up to 14 years and he has further contended that compliance of section 103, Cr.P.C. In such type of cases in no way can be insisted the police officials are as good witnesses as any other person until and unless any it is shown that they have motive to depose falsely. He has also supported the impugned order in the circumstances.
5. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/accused and the learned APG at length and have gone through the police papers with their valuable assistance.
6. ' The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on 27-8-2013 at 02:30 hours they were busy in patrolling duty when spy information was received and so the applicant/accused was intercepted and due to non-availability of the public witnesses his search was conducted in presence of two subordinate officials which resulted in recovery of un-numbered pistol with four round and same was without licence. F.I.R. Was lodged and pursuant thereto investigation was conducted and charge sheet was filed and before the trial court bail to the applicant/accused was declined as aforesaid. On the other hand it is the plea of the applicant/accused was he was in detention with the Rangers who was not able to collect any material against him and he was not found involved in any crime, as such, ultimately he was handed-over to the police of Gulshan-e-Iqbal Police Station where uncalled for demand was made which since he was not able to meet, he was involved into this case. Thus from the above I have no hesitation in observing that now it is a, case of two versions i,e, one by prosecution and the other by the police. Further there appears to be force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant that as per prosecution case till such time the applicant/accused was shown intercepted and alleged recovery was shown he was not shown to have made any sort of resistance and thus according to him this fact alone has nexus to support the plea as taken by the applicant/accused that actually he was in detention with the Rangers and it was pursuant to his shifting to P.S. Gulshan-e-Iqbal that instant F.I.R. Was lodged is a matter which is requiring probe at trial. The non-presence of sketch of weapon shown recovered on the mashirnama has also made the prosecution case highly doubtful and further the investigation of the case being over and the applicant/accused being in judicial custody and so also admittedly there is inordinate delay in dispatching of the pistol for FSL and the material thing that till such time it was sent to the FSL in whose custody it remained and so also there being no entry available in the police file, also has made the prosecution case a matter of further enquiry within the meaning of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. As such, bail plea of the applicant/ accused in the manner as already set-forth in the short order dated 21-3-2014 and above are the reasons for reaching to such conclusion. However the observations as made by me above will not prejudice the case of the either party at trial.