Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 248/B of 1986, decided on 22nd March, 1986.
‑‑‑--S. 498‑‑West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Co‑accused after making a statement that accused had given fire‑arms to him leading to recovery of illicit arms during investigation of a case‑‑Accused was not present at time of recovery‑‑Except disclosure made by co‑accused and statements of recovery witnesses no evidence about involvement of accused existing‑‑Recovery witnesses were also witnesses in three out of five cases registered against accused‑‑Illicit fire‑arms already recovered‑ ‑Co‑accused who led to recovery has already been granted bail‑‑Bail allowed to accused in circumstances.
Inayatullah Cheema for Petitioner.
Mian Jamil Akhtar for the Complainant.
Abdus Salam for the State.
Date of hearing: 22nd March, 1986.
Umar Hayat petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him and his nephew Ansar Hayat under section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965.
The prosecution version is that during the investigation of case F.I.R. No.3, dated 3‑1‑1986, Ansar Hayat co‑accused made a disclosure that his maternal‑uncle Umat Hayat (petitioner, herein) had given him 18 guns which he had buried in the area of village Batala. After making this disclosure, Ansar Hayat led to the recovery of 5 rifles and 13 guns of .12 bore from a Khola. This disclosure was made in the presence of Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Hanif.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated at the instance of one Haq Nawaz who was annoyed with the petitioner for the reasons that he provided shelter to his helpless old father Haji Sher Baz against his wishes. It is further submitted that aforesaid Haq Nawaz got five cases registered against the petitioner for different offences within a period of sixteen days. Learned counsel further argues that the statement of a co‑accused before the Police is not admissible and there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with this offence.
3. The learned State counsel does not oppose the prayer for bail.
4. I have gone through the relevant material. The perusal of the file reveals that on 4‑3‑1986 Ansar Hayat made a statement before the D.S.P. that he received the guns from one Nazir Khan who wanted him to keep the same with him for some time. At the time of delivery of the guns Umar Hayat petitioner was not present. On enquiry the D. S. P. states that except the disclosure made by Ansar Hayat before Asmat Ullah Khan S.H.O., Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Hanif and the statements of Asif Hayat and Muhammad Altaf, there is no other evidence about the involvement of the petitioner. Asif Hayat and Muhammad Altaf are witnesses against the petitioner in three out of five cases A referred to above. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed copies of F.I.Rs. of eight cases in which Muhammad Ramzan P.W. was an accused persons. In a murder case registered at P.S. Sadar Sargodha on 29‑8‑1980, vide F.I.R. No. 334, he was a co‑accused of aforementioned Haq Nawaz son of Hap Sher Baz. The alleged illicit rifles and guns have already been recovered and co‑accused Ansar Hayat who allegedly led to the recovery thereof, has already been released on bail by the learned Illaqa Magistrate. In the circumstances, the interim bail is confirmed.
H.A.K. Interim bail confirmed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer