1. ' Applicant seeks bail in Crime No,17 of 1997 registered under section 13(d) of Arms Ordinance pending in the Court of Vth Additional SessiOn Judge, Karachi (South).
2. ' The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 14-1-1997 at. About 11-15 p.m. Complainant A.S.-I.
3. Muhammad Ishaq of Police Station Chawkiwara alongwith other staff were patrolling in the area and when they reached at Adamjee Bus Stop, Chawkiwara Road, Lyari, Karachi, they saw a person wearing grey clothes and on enquiry could not reply correctly and was apprehended. He disclosed his name as Ahmed Jan Sheene and on his personal search a 7 MM rifle without number with seven loaded magazine was found hanging on his right side shoulder. From further search Rs,17 and N.I.C. Were recovered. He was taken into custody and brought at the police station and above crime was lodged against him. Bail application was filed in the Trial Court which was rejected on 27-6-1997, hence this bail application.
4. 'It is contended by Mr. M. Iqbal Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant that the learned Trial Court while rejecting bail application has not considered the factual as well as legal aspect of the case and has simply rejected bail application on the ground that the case was received from the learned Sessions Judge on 23-4-1997 and has not proceeded as yet. He next argued that the weapon recovered from the possession of the applicant is neither automatic nor semi-automatic and too without any number and the punishment, provided in the amended Ordinance in this case will not be applicable, as the said Ordinance stands lapsed. He, therefore, contended that in view of this latest position punishment provided under section 13(d) of Arms Ordinance is 7 years, as such it goes out of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. He lastly submitted that the prosecution has not been able to produce report from ballistic expert in this connection. Therefore, from the allegations the case of the applicant becomes of further enquiry. He placed reliance on the case law reported in 1997 PCr.LJ 198.
5. ' At the very outset Mr. Iqbal Qadri, learned Assistant Advocate-General conceded that the Pakistan Arms (IIIrd Amendment) Ordinance, 1996 has not been carried on further and has expired and thus stands lapsed, as such the original position is received and by which the maximum punishment provided for the alleged offence is 7 years. Moreover he further stated that the order of the learned Trial Court is not a speaking one as not even a single reason has been assigned for refusing concession of bail.
6. From the perusal of the learned Trial Court, it is evident that learned Judge while rejecting bail application has not advanced even a single reason as to why bail may not be granted to the applicant. Simply saying that the case has been received from the Court of Session and has not yet proceeded, is not the requirement of law while dealing with the bail application. In the case of Abdul Khalil v. The State, reported in 1997 PCr.LJ 198(e) referred to above, this aspect of the case has been considered and a Full Bench of this Court has held that bail application can be moved at any time after registration of the case. The accused cannot be penalized by refusing to adjudicate upon his bail application on account of delay in submission of the challan or framing of the charge.
7. It is also admitted by the learned Assistant Advocate General that the report from ballistic expert has not yet been received. In. Criminal Bail No, 285 of 1997 a Division Bench of this Court has considered this aspect to the case and granted bail to the accused mainly on the ground that the weapon said to have been recovered from him was not sealed at the spot and also no report of ballistic expert was produced. Irrespective of this fact that the maximum punishment provided under law in this case will be with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years or with fine or with both, as such taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, the case against the applicant will not fall under prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
8. ' For these and other reasons, the case against the applicant calls for further enquiry as contemplated under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Bail is allowed to the applicant. He shall be released on his furnishing solvent safety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one Lakh) with P.R.
9. Bond in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
10. ' Above are the reasons for the short order announced on 8-8-1997.