O R D E R MRS. ASHRAF JAHAN, J.:- Through this criminal bail application, applicant/accused Mohammad Waris @ Haris son of Mohammad Anwar seeks post-arrest bail in Crime No.320/2014 under section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2013).
2. The facts in a nut-shell are that it has been reported by S.I Aslam Jamal of Police Station Shahrah-e-Faisal, Karachi that on 07.05.2014 at about 1430 hours, he was busy in patrolling/snap checking on main road in front of 786 medical store, Block-17, Gulistan-e-Johar, Karachi, when he saw one boy and girl coming on a motorcycle, they were asked to stop but the rider speeded up the motorcycle, however, he was followed and got stopped at some distance. On inquiry they disclosed their names as Mohammad Waris @ Haris and Saba wife of Mohammad Waris. Upon personal search, one pistol of 30 bore was recovered from the fold of shalwar of Mohammad Waris @ Haris loaded with two live rounds. On demand of license, he failed to produce the same, thus he was arrested and the present F.I.R was lodged. Subsequently it was disclosed by the present applicant/accused that the motorcycle was also stolen and on inquiry from CPLC it was reported that motorcycle was stolen property in crime No.318/2014 under section 381-A PPC of police station Shahrah-e-Faisal. In the present case the applicant/accused filed his bail application before the Court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (East), who rejected the same on 06.11.2014, 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 for the applicant that the bail has already been granted in Crime No.318/2014 under section 381-A PPC. In the present case, though challan has been produced before the trial Court and the applicant/accused is behind the bars since last seven (7) months, but still trial has not commenced. He has further contended that though the arrest was made during day time but police failed to take any independent witness in this case, thus, it is a case of further inquiry and the applicant/accused is entitled for concession of bail.
4. On the other hand, it is contended by learned A.P.G that both husband and wife were apprehended alongwith stolen motorcycle, which was required in Crime No.318/2014 under section 381-A, PPC of police station Shahrah-e-Faisal, the present case falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497(1) Cr.P.C and section 103 Cr.P.C has already been excluded in the Act, 2013, therefore, this contention of learned counsel for the applicant/accused that no private witness has been taken is of no help and it is not a case for further enquiry or grant of bail.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and perused the case record, which reveals that the present applicant/accused was apprehended alongwith his wife on 07.05.2014 when they were riding over a stolen motorcycle, on personal search one 30 bore pistol without number alongwith two round loaded magazine was recovered from the possession of present applicant/accused on the spot, which has been sent for the FSL and such report is available on record, which is in the affirmative. No doubt that the police has not taken any independent witness in this case but as application of section 103 has been excluded in the Act, 2013, therefore, this ground cannot be taken as valid ground for grant of bail. Under these circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that as the applicant/accused is, prima facie, involved in the crime, which comes within the prohibitory clause, at this stage no case for grant of bail is made out. This bail application is therefore rejected.
6. Before parting with this order, I would like to dilate upon the newly promulgated Act of 2013. It is a special law and its preamble reveals that it has been enacted to reform the legislation pertaining to arms and ammunition in the province to curb the proliferation of arms, whether licensed or not, which is disrupting the social harmony and directly contributing to the barbaric violence in the society. Therefore, under this Act the punishments for different offences provided under different sections have been enhanced as compared to the Arms Act of 1965. As this law has been made to cater the present day deteriorating law and order situation, therefore, the cases under this Act, 2013 are strictly to be dealt with in terms of its language and spirit, in its specific background on its own peculiar and distinctive legislation. Simultaneously, it will be relevant to mention that Act of 2013 also provides section 26, which deals with punishment for vexatious recovery and arrest, if any police officer or witness is declared responsible for fake or vexatious recovery shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extent to 3 years and with fine. In order to curb false implication of innocent persons the Courts of law, if and when are required, invoke this provision of law also to meet the ends of justice.
7. As in the present case learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that applicant/accused has been challaned before the Court of law, but in last seven months trial has not commenced, therefore, trial Court is directed to decide the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court for compliance and report through M.I.T-II of this Court.