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 go down the following arms and ammunitions were recovered:--
1. 12.7 MMAA Gun roundTotal =1028 rounds
2. Dangar gun roundsTotal= 13600 rounds
3. 20 MM round Total = 55 rounds.
4. 75 inner Gaheed GrenadeTotal= 229 rounds
5. Rounds different SMG/LMGTotal= 2665
6. Empty Kohle bulletTotal =115
7. RR4/7-40MM rocket LaunchersTotal =57 Golay
8. 81 MMM Mortar GolayTotal =10 Golay
9. RPG-40 MM rocket Launchers fuseTotal= 71 fuse
10. Missile 4 ft Total= 02
11. SPG-9 RR gun with standTotal =01
12. LMG china gun Total= 02
13. 20 MM Anti air craft gun with standTotal= 03
14. SMG china Magazine loadedTotal= 120 rounds
15. Hand Grenade 75/H4Total= 03 Boxes
16. Door Been Recovered (Telescope)Total = 01
17. 81 MM Mortar StandTotal= 01
18. Empty Pochesis SMG China/G3Total= 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 raid. 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 the 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 and 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 manifests 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 addition 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 categorically denied by the applicant. Therefore, the prosecution case carries sufficient evidence against the applicant.
In the instant case, the accused, the detainees and the eyewitnesses were present at the time of raid and their statements were recorded 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 law 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 safely be termed as a unique example of its kind, where by 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 here in.
Therefore, possibility of his false implication absolutely does 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.