' MUHAMMAD IQBAL KALHORO, J.---The applicant Muhammad Siddique, through this application is seeking post arrest bail in crime No. 37/2014 of Police Station Phuleli under section 23-A of Sindh Arms Act, 2013.
2. The brief facts leading to the prosecution case are that the complainant SIP Syed Ikhlaque Hussain Shah was on patrol duty on 30-3-2014 at about 2100 hours, when on the tipoff, he went to the place of incident viz. Chhore Mill Ground Tando Agha Hyderabad, there he saw the present applicant along with co-accused Ramz Ali alias Ramz standing, having in possession Cartoons of Tapal Tea and three motorcycles, purportedly waiting for some vehicle, who on seeing the police party tried to escape away but the complainant along with his staff was able to arrest the applicant and allegedly from his possession, recovered an unlicensed .30 bore pistol and five live bullets. The co-accused Ramzan alias Ramz Ali, however, is alleged to have made his escape good.
3. The applicant/accused applied for bail before learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, who vide his order dated 19-4-2014 declined bail plea of the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant/accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case; nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and alleged pistol has been foisted upon him. Per learned counsel since the case has been challaned, therefore, applicant is no more required for further investigation; despite spy information in advance, the police did not try to associate any independent person to witness the recovery proceedings. Per learned counsel, applicant has no past criminal record to show his involvement in criminal activities. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon unreported cases bearing Criminal Application No.S-1134 of 2013 (Nazeer Ahmed v. The State) and Criminal Bail Application No.S-974 of 2013, wherein this court has granted bail in offence under section 23 -A of Sindh Arms Act, 2013.
5. While rebutting the above arguments, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant/accused by arguing that since the applicant was arrested at the spot and unlicensed pistol was recovered from his possession in presence of the official witnesses, which is heinous offence and punishment provided under the law is upto 14 years, therefore, applicant is not entitled for concession of bail.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as well as sought guidance from the orders of this court passed in the above referred cases.
7. In the present case, the arrest of the accused resulting in the recovery of .30 bore pistol from his possession by the police was effected on a tipoff received by them in advance but no efforts appeal have been made by the police officials to ensure presence the independent persons to verify the recovery from the applicant/accused in A the present case. No doubt the police officials are as good witnesses as others but when whole prosecution case hinges upon the evidence of the police officials without any independent corroboration, then such evidence needs to be examined with care and utmost caution. On query, learned State Counsel was unable to point out as to whether in respect of other material viz. Cartoons of Tapal Tea, motorcycles etc, any criminal case was registered against the applicant or not, he has also admitted that there is no previous criminal record subsisting against the accused. It is not out of place to mention here that the concept of grant of bail is not punitive in nature. The bail cannot be withheld as a punishment merely for the reason that the offence falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. In such cases where guilt of the accused requires further inquiry, bail can be granted to him irrespective of .The bar stated above.
7.(sic.) Learned counsel for the applicant during his arguments has pointed out that in fact the case of the applicant/accused does not come within the ambit of section 23-A of Sindh Arms Act, 2013. He has argued that the pistol allegedly recovered from the applicant/accused does not come within the definition of firearm as provided under the law.
' For the sake of convenience and elucidation, sections 23-A and 2(d) are reproduced as under;-- 23-A, Whoever acquires, possesses, carries or controls any firearm or ammunition in infringement of section 3, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years and within fine; ' Section 2(d) of the said Act define 'firearm" in the following manner:-
(d) "Firearm" means weapons designed to discharge a projectile or projectiles of any kind by the action of gun powder or any explosive or other forms of energy and includes:-
(i) Artillery hand-grenades, riot-pistols or weapons of any kind designed for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas etc;
(ii) Accessories for any such firearm, intended to diminish the noise or flash caused by the firing thereof;
(iii) Parts of and machinery for manufacturing firearms; and carriages, platforms and appliances for mounting, transporting and serving artillery; ' Bare reading of above definition stipulates that "firearm" means those weapons designed to discharge projectile of any kind by the action of gun powder or any explosive or any other forms of energy. Since the definition of word projectile is not provided under Sindh Arms Act, therefore, I refer the meaning of projectile available in Webster's New Words, College Dictionary, Third Edition, according to which, projectile is an object designed to be hurled or shot forward as canon shell or rocket or (2) anything thrown forward.
The above meaning of word projectile furnishes enough enunciation to prima facie hold that it is yet to be determined during the trial as to whether the alleged .30 bore pistol falls within the definition of "firearm" or not as apparently there is no specific mention of pistol in the definition of "firearm" as reproduced above.
Keeping in view the above facts, I find no ground to hold the applicant in custody till completion of the trial when the investigation is complete and case stands challaned, more particularly, there is no serious contention of the prosecution that the applicant if released on bail would interfere with the trial or tamper with the evidence, therefore, in my view the continuous detention of the applicant in jail will not serve any purpose. Accordingly, applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Fifty thousands) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
' The Criminal Bail Application stands disposed of.