O R D E R MRS. ASHRAF JAHAN, J.:- Being aggrieved with the Order dated 30.08.2014, passed by learned Ist Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karachi (Central), applicant/accused Mohammad Faizan has filed this application for post arrest bail in crime No.127/2014 under section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2013).
2. The facts leading to this case are that with reference to F.I.R No.126/2014 dated 30.06.2014, under sections 324, 353, 34 PPC of P.S North Nazimabad, district Central, Karachi, one unlicensed TT pistol No.6295 of 30 bore load with magazine, one live bullet and live round in its chamber were recovered from the applicant/accused, who on demand of license of the recovered weapon failed to produce the same, hence the present F.I.R was lodged under the Act, 2013. The applicant/accused moved bail application before trial Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 30.08.2014, which is impugned before this Court.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant/accused as well as learned A.P.G. It is contended by learned counsel that the applicant/accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the police; nothing was recovered from his possession as the alleged recovery of pistol was foisted upon him. During the course of the arguments learned counsel has pointed out that the trial Court at the time of passing the Order failed to observe that alleged recovered pistol is semi-automatic, therefore, the provisions of Section 23(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 are not attracted, infact in such like cases section 24 of the Act, 2013 is applicable. He further contended that the offence is said to have been committed at 10:15 a.m. at a thickly populated area but inspite of that police failed to associate any independent witness to certify the alleged recovery from the present applicant/accused. It is further contended that as per police interrogation report, age of accused is only 19 years; therefore, by virtue of provisions of section 23(2) of the Act, 2013, the alleged offence is punishable with imprisonment for a period, which may extend to 7 years and with fine. Thus does not fall within the prohibitory clause and in such cases grant of bail is rule while refusal is an exception. In support his contention, he has relied upon the case of Rajab v/s. The State (2014 YLR 1769). He has further contended that the applicant/accused is the only bread earner of his family and case has been challaned, therefore, he is no more required for the purpose of investigation, hence he has made out a case for grant of bail.
4. On the other hand, learned A.P.G. has submitted that on 30.06.2014 the applicant/accused alongwith his companion was arrested in Crime No.126/2014 under sections 353/324/34 PPC, the FSL report is on record and the empties fired from the alleged weapon during the encounter collected from the place of incident have matched with the recovered pistol. The compliance of section 103 has already been excluded in the Act of 2013; therefore, no case for bail is made out. He further contended that provisions of section 8 are only applicable in case of licensed weapons.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and have perused the police papers, which reveal that apart from present case as mentioned earlier, the applicant/accused is shown to have involved in Crime No.126/2014 under sections 324, 353, 34 PPC, of the same police station. He was arrested at the spot and upon his personal search one TT pistol was recovered from him. Not only this, but the empties were also collected from the place of incident, regarding which position FSL report is on record to show that the same were fired from the recovered 30 bore pistol. Under the above circumstances, it appears that prima facie there is sufficient material on record to connect the present applicant/accused with the commission of crime, which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) Cr.P.C.
6. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the applicant/accused regarding applying incorrect provisions of law i.e. 23(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 is concerned, it is pertinent to mention that the said section is punishable for 14 years, whereas section 24 of the Act, 2013 is also punishable with 10 years with fine. In such situation, it is clear that both the sections fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) Cr.P.C. The other contention of learned counsel was that no independent witness has been associated at the time of recovery of the alleged weapon. In this regard it will suffice to mention that section 34 of the Act, 2013 specifically excludes application of section 103 Cr.P.C and allows the police officials present at the spot to be witnesses of search and recovery. No doubt the incident has taken place during the day time but looking to the present day scenario, when general public avoids to become witness in such like cases, therefore, this contention of the learned counsel is of no help to the present applicant/accused. Besides, no ill will or enmity is attributed against the police party.
7. As regards the contention of learned counsel for applying the provisions of section 8 read with section 23(2) of the Act, 2013 are concerned, I may also refer here a portion of order dated 30.06.2014, passed in Criminal Bail Application No.767/2014 by Single Bench of this Court, containing his views about the scope of section 8(1) of the Act, 2013, which reads as under: "Perusal of section 8(1) in context with the case in hand reflects that it provides that no person who is below the age of 25 years who acquires, possess or carries any firearm or ammunition, sell or transfer any firearm or ammunition to, or convert, repair, or test any firearm or ammunition for, any other person whom he knows, or has reasons to believe-
(i) to be prohibited from acquiring, possessing or carrying any firearm or ammunition, or
(ii) to be an unsound mind at the time of such sale or transfer, or such conversion, repair or test.
Minute perusal of section 8(1) reflects that it applies to those persons who are below the age of 25 years and acquires, possess or carries any firearm or ammunition for other persons whom he knows or reasons to believe to be prohibited from acquiring, possessing or carrying any firearm or ammunition. It is not the case of applicant that he had acquired or was possessing or carrying any firearm or ammunition for any other person with the knowledge or with the reasons to believe that such person is prohibited from carrying any firearm or ammunition, therefore, the argument appears to be misconceived."
In view of above discussion, I hold that the provisions of section 8 of the Act, 2013 have no application to the case of present applicant.
8. In the light of above discussion, I am of the considered view that no case for bail is made out in favour of the present applicant/accused. This bail application is therefore rejected. However, as this is a case where challan has already been produced before the Court and only the police officials are the witnesses, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the proceedings of the case and to conclude the same within a period of four months from the date of this order.
A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for compliance and report through M.I.T-II of this Court.