Cr.Bail 3516/2025 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi

Sindh High Court · 2025 · Before Zafar Ahmed Rajput

abortive to get the concession of post-arrest bail from the Anti-Terrorism Court No. XV, Karachi (“Trial Court”) in Cr. Bail Application No. 99 of 2025, vide order dated 08.12.2025, through the instant application seeks the same concession from this Court in Crime/FIR No. 90 of 2025, registered at Police Station CTD, Karachi under section 23 (1) (a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 (the “Act”)readwithsection7oftheAnti-TerrorismAct,1997.

2. As per Prosecution’s case, on 28.11.2025, SI-Saqib Malik of CTD Sindh, Karachi during patrolling, alongwith his sub-ordinate staff, for arresting the absconding accused and proclaimed offenders, received spy information that three terrorists of BLA involved in terrorist activities were present at Akhri Bus Stop, 20 Number Ada, opposite Kosar Masjid, Shireen Jinnah Colony, Keamari, Karachi. On such information, police party reached the pointed place at 0100 hours and, on the pointation of informer, arrested (1) Zafarullah s/o Hibatullah, (2) Junaid Ahmed s/o Nabi Bux and (3) Muhammad Waqas s/o Laiq Khan (Present Applicant). Upon their search, from the possession of Zafarullah, one hand grenade alongwith pin was recovered; from the possession of Waqas, one 9mm pistol alongwith magazine containing 03 live rounds were recovered while from possession of accused Junaid, one hand grenade alongwith pin was - 2 - recovered. After completing requisite formalities, the police party alongwith accused person reached police station and the FIR No.88 and 89 of 2025 under section 4/5 Explosive Substance Act was registered against the accuse persons. While a separate FIR No.90 of 2025 under section 23(1)(a) of the Act was registeredagainsttheApplicant.

3. LearnedcounselfortheApplicanthasmainlycontendedthatApplicantis innocent and has committed no offence and the alleged pistol has been foisted upon him; that the Applicant is a Pashtun; permanent resident of Mardan, KPK, who has nothing to do with so-called terrorist activities of BLA, has been involved in a false case by the police; that the pistol does not come within the definition of firearms or ammunition but within arms and hence the police has misapplied section 23 (1) (a) at the place of section 24 of the Act, which offence doesnotfallwithintheprohibitoryclauseofsection497,CrPCbeingpunishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years; that despite prior information, police failed to associate any private mashir and thus the alleged recoveryisinviolationofsection103,CrPC.

4. Conversely, learned Addl. PG has maintained that the Act has been enacted to curb the proliferation of arms and ammunition in the society and sinceoffencefallswithintheprohibitoryclauseofsection497,CrPC,heopposes theapplication.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the Applicant as well as learned Addl.PGandperusedthematerialavailableonrecordwiththeirassistance.

6. In order to appreciate the contentions of learned counsel for the Applicant, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of section23(1)(a)andsection24oftheAct,asunder:

23. Punishment for certain offences.-(1)Whoever- (a) acquires,possesses,carriesorcontrolanyfirearmor ammunition in infringement of section 3, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extendtofourteenyearsandwithfine; - 3 -

Opening of the judgment. Loading the full judgment on LexPK…