ALI MUHAMMAD BALOCH, J. - Applicant Tahir Ahmed is seeking bail in a case registered against him on 29.7.1995.
2. In short the prosecution case against the applicant lodged by Sub- Inspector of Police Muhammad Iqbal discloses that on 29.7.1995 when S.I, Muhammad Iqbal was investigating another case he wanted to arrest accused person in that case and for that purpose he alongwith his subordinate staff raided the house belonging to 2 brothers Sohail and Tahir. The Sub- Inspector in the process of raid noticed that Sohail alongwith his mother Mst. Halima managed to escape but while doing so he had thrown a bag which he was carying. The S.I. Police recovered 300 bullets of Kalashankov, 48 bullets of T.T. Pistol and a magazine of Kalashankov from the bag which was said to have been thrown by Sohail while escaping. However the police managed to arrest the present applicant Tahir Ahmed who was also wanted by the police in the earlier case in which police was investigating. On personal search of the applicant Tahir Ahmed, one T.T.Pistol 30 bore, a loaded magazine and 4 bullets were recovered from him. Thereafter the police also searched the house of the two brothers wherefrom plastic bags containing alcohal and heroin were also recovered. The police thereafter produced charge-sheet against the applicant in 2 cases. One being the main case in which the applicant was charged for an offence punishable u/S. 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance 1979 and the second case was for an offence punishable u/S. 13- D, Arms Ordinance.
This bail application is only in respect of second charge i.e. For an offence U/S 13-D, Arms Ordinance. The applicant has already been released on bail in the main case vide Criminal Bail Application No.557/96, granted on 25.4.1996.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the applicant in this bail application that the incident in both cases is clamimed to be the same and is an out-come of the same raid conducted by the police and therefore, the evidence from the police will generally be the same excepting the recoveries. While in the present case the police has to prove the recovery of unlicensed T.T.Pistol, the police has to prove the recovery of the narcotics in the other, but the witnesses in both cases are common. Further argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that since in the main case of the recovery of the narcotics a learned Single Judge of this Court has already granted bail to the applicant, it will be under the rule of consistency that the bail in the present case may also be granted.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State, has however, stated that applicant appears to be dealer in narcotics and that he was found in possession of unlicensed T.T.Pistol, therefore, he may not be granted bail.
5. We have considered the arguments advanced before us. We cannot lose the sight of the fact that the present case concerns recovery of the unlicensed arm from the possession of the applicant on 29.7.1995 while the trial in the case has not been concluded till this day. The learned State counsel does not claim that the accused is responsible for such delay. The applicant has remained in jail for more then 1 1/2 years and it is stated that even charge has not been framed against him. Coupled with this, is the fact that he has already been granted bail in the main case of the norcotics. The witnesses in both the cases are common as the recoveries in the two cases are at one and at the same time. Since the applicant has already been granted bail in the main case and has remained in custody in this case for more than 1 1/2 years without being instrumental in delay of the proceedings, we consider that he has become entitled to be released on bail in this case.
6. Consequently we allow this application and direct that the applicant may be released on his furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (One Lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.