FARRUKH GULZAR AWAN, J.--Petitioner Rab Nawaz has sought concession of post arrest bail in case FIR No,117 dated 15.4.2015 registered under Section 13/2(c) of the Punjab Arms (Amendment)
Act, 2015 at Police Station Saddar Gujrat.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 15.04.2015, on spy information, the police party present at Loran Chowk, intercepted car No,LXD/9524, which was being driven by the petitioner and on the search of said vehicle one Kalashnikov, Riffle 44 bore, 10 pistols 30 bore, 50 bullets of Kalashnikov along with two magazine, 4 packets of 20 each bullets of 44 bore and 10 packets of 50 each bullets of 30 bore were recovered for which petitioner could not produce any license or permit and he was arrested then and there by the police.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the case against the petitioner is false and concocted one; that the petitioner was arrested in this case on 15.4.2015 and since then he is behind the bars; that the petitioner is previously non convict nor record holder person; that the vehicle in which the alleged ammunition was being carried, does not belong to the petitioner; that the petitioner is resident of KPK and has nothing to do with the alleged offence; that there is violation of Section 103, Cr.P.C. In the recovery proceedings, therefore, the case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry and as such he is entitled to the concession of bail.
4. On the other hand learned DDPP has opposed this petition and it is contended that the petitioner is the nominated accused of the FIR, who was caught red handed and huge quantity of ammunition was recovered; that it is well settled law by now that the police officials are as good witnesses as the witnesses from the public; that the challan has been submitted in the Court for trial and that the petitioner has committed a heinous offence, therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned DDPP for the State and have gone through the record.
6. The petitioner is the nominated accused of the FIR, who was allegedly caught red-handed at the spot along with the ammunition/prohibited weapons.
7. Section 13 of Ordinance XX of 1965 has been substituted through the Punjab Arms (Amendment)
Act, 2015 (Act XV of 2015) and the relevant substituted Section 13(2)(C) provides punishment for the offence. The petitioner was allegedly carrying more than five prohibited weapons and the punishment for such offence is imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years and which may extend to fourteen years and with fine.
8. According to Schedule II of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, Offences Against Other Laws, offences punishable with imprisonment for 3-years and- upwards but not exceeding 7-years or with whipping not exceeding 80-stripes with or without imprisonment are declared to be not bailable except in cases under [The Arms Ordinance, 1965 Section 13].
9. Since Section 13 of Ordinance XX of 1965 is scheduled offence and has been substituted through the Punjab Arms (Amendment) Act, 2015 (Act XV of 2015) and the relevant substituted Section 13(2)
(C) provides the punishment of imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years and which may extend to fourteen years and with fine but Schedule II of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 has not been amended, therefore , the same shall be read to be falling within the purview of Part-I, which provides that if offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, imprisonment exceeding 7 years, amputation of hand or foot or both hand and foot or with whipping exceeding 80 strips with or without any other of said punishment, shall be not bailable.
10. Section 497(1) as amended by Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2011 (VII of 2011) for ready reference reads as under:-- "When any person accused of non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer-in-charge of a police station, or appears or is brought before a Court, he may be released on bail, but he shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death Or [imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years]."
11. Maximum punishment provided for the instant offence is 14-years with fine, which falls within the Prohibitory Clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Our country is under the dark clouds of acts of terrorism by the terrorists and prohibited weapons are being spread all over the country which are being used for terrorist activities. In the prevailing law and order situation of the country, the illicit arms smuggler/paddlers should be dealt with iron hands, who play havoc with the precious lives of the innocent persons including children, disable and old age citizens. Unlawful trafficking and transportation of unlicensed prohibited arms intra country is highly condemn able as the nation is facing high perils and threats of terrorism and fighting the war of its inner peace and solidarity to be marching in right path of progress, peace and prosperity. All such notorious elements involved in heinous activities putting national accord and unity in danger, deserve no leniency for involving themselves in anti-state exercise. The petitioner was caught red handed at the spot along with huge quantity of prohibited ammunition, which if not recovered, would have been used against the public tranquility.
12. The grant or refusal of bail is totally a discretionary relief but in the offences punishable with death,imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years, the Court has to exercise its discretion for refusal of bail firstly on the ground that there is likelihood of absconder of accused, secondly there is apprehension of accused tampering with the prosecution evidence, thirdly there is danger of offence being repeated and lastly where the accused is a previous convict. The petitioner is admittedly resident of province of KPK and there is every possibility of his being absconder, if released on bail. Charge against the petitioner is of heinous in nature and in such like cases of public tranquility, the Court should limit itself to exercise its discretion for grant of bail.
13. Sufficient incriminating material is available on record against the petitioner connecting him with the commission of offence, which falls within the Prohibitory Clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner has failed to point out any malice and mala fide on the part of police, therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
In view of above, the petition in hand is without any merit, the same stands dismissed.