1. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR. In this case was registered on 27-7-1995 for offence under section 13-D Arms Ordinance and it is shown in the F.I.R. That the weapon was recovered from the applicant while he was on foot-path near Bus Stop. Learned counsel for the applicant has contested this version by stating that the applicant was arrested on 23-7-1995 at Tando Adam and in order to prove his arguments he has referred to newspaper report of daily.
2. 'Kawish' which shown that Naim Mirjat (applicant) was arrested at Tando Adam. He also relies on affidavits of two residents of Tando Adam, namely, A.I Murad and Chakar, who have also stated that the applicant was arrested at Tando Adam. Learned counsel for the applicant also relies on an order of the Honourable Supreme Court in Criminal Petition No. 140 of 1995 (Cr.A. No. 445, of 1995).
3. Learned State counsel submits that the affidavits of witnesses are not produced before the Court and these witnesses have never appeared before the Court, therefore,. These affidavits cannot be relied upon. He opposes the grant of bail as the father's name of the applicant is not mentioned in the press report. He further submits that the report of the Ballistic Expert in positive.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon an order of the Honouable Supreme Court and a photocopy of the said order has been produced before us. The paragraph 8 of the said order is as under: "We have decided to refrain from dilating on the respective contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. The offence with which, the appellant stands charged, prima facie, falls under section 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, which is punishable with imprisonment that may extend to three years or seven years. In either case, the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. We would accordingly allow him bail and direct that he should furnish bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court."