High Court Division :
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Quamrul Islam Siddique J
AKM Zahirul Hoque J
Moshiur Rahman
Bhuiyan @ Babu
…. Accused-Appellant
vs
State……… Opposite Party
Judgment
March 9th, 2014
Arms Act (XI of 1878)
Section 19A
The arms and ammunition which have been manufactured for the army supply cannot be possessed by the accused or any other ordinary persons. This creates doubt in the mind how a pistol which is manufactured for army supply only can be possessed by the accused. The accused has been in jail custody for more than one year five moths. The trial has not been commenced as yet. The appellant is granted bail to the satisfaction of the Special Tribunal. …(6 & 8)
SM Shahjahan Advocate-For the Accused Appellant.
Dr Md Bashir Ullah DAG-For the State.
Judgment
Quamrul Islam Siddique J : This appeal is directed against the order dated 9-6-2013 passed by the Learned Judge. Special Tribunal No. 1. Narsingdi in Special Tribunal Case No.11 of 2013, arising out ofNarsingdi Police Station Case No. 96 dated 30-10-2012, under Section 19A of the Arms Act rejecting the prayer for bail of the accused-appellant.
2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 30-10-2012 the informant along with his force was on duty for conducting special raid and at that time they received secret information that some arms were kept inside the shop of one Jahangir. Thereafter, they raided the shop and the accused persons tried to flee away, but they were caught by police and on search police found one automatic pistol and 6 round cartridges in the waist of the accused-appellant. Thereafter, police prepared the Seizure list in presence of the witnesses and seized the alamots on the basis of the above mentioned FIR Narsingdi PS Case No. 96 dated 30-10-2012 was recorded under Section 19A of the Arms Act. Police after investigation found prima facie case and submitted chargesheet against three accused persons.
3. SM Shahjahan the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant submits that the accused-appellant had falsely been implicated in this case out of enmity. He further submits that in the seizure list it has been stated that the recovered pistol was the property of the Army and that the pistol was manufactured for the purpose of Army supply only and that such kind of pistol cannot be in the possession of any outsider including the accused-appellant. He then submits that police arrested the accused-appellant on 30-10-2012 and since then he has been in jail custody. He lastly submits that police submitted charge sheet on 20-11-2012 but no charge has been framed against the accused-appellant by then court as yet.
4. Dr Md Bashir Ullah, the learned Deputy Attorney General appearing on behalf of the state submits that the record was transmitted to the court on 10-2-2013 and that the court fixed 17-3-2014 for framing on charge. He further submits that since the arm in question has been recovered from the waist of the accused-appellant the accused-appellant is not entitled to bail at this stage.
5. We have heard the learned advocates for both sides perused the record, FIR, Chargesheet, the seizure list and other relevant papers etc. It appears from the record that police arrested the accused on 30-10-2012. Police also submitted chargesheet on 20-11-2012. The record has been transmitted to the trial Court on 10-2-2013 but no charge has been framed against the accused appellant as yet. In the seizure list the description of the pistol has been given as under:
“???????? ???? ??? ???????? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ??. ??? ? ??? ???????? ?.?? ????? ? ????????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ????”
6. The arms and ammunition which have been manufactured for the army supply cannot be possessed by the accused or any other ordinary persons. This creates doubt in the mind how a pistol which is manufactured for army supply only can be possessed by the accused. Moreover, the accused has been in jail custody since 30-10-2012 i.e, he has been in jail for more than one year five moths. The trial has not been commenced as yet.
7. Considering all facts and circumstances of the case, we find substance in this appeal.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and under dated 9-6-2013 passed by the Learned Judge, Special tribunal No. I, Narsingdi, in Special Tribunal Case No. 11 of 2013, arising out of Narsingdi PS Case No. 96 dated 30-10-2012 under Section 19A of the Arms Act is set aside. The accused appellant is granted bail to the satisfaction of the learned judge, Special Tribunal No. I, Narsingdi till conclusion of the Special Tribunal Case No.11 of 2013. However, the Learned Judge, Special tribunal No.1, Narsingdi shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the accused appellant if the misuses the privilege of bail.
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Quamrul Islam Siddique J
AKM Zahirul Hoque J
Moshiur Rahman
Bhuiyan @ Babu
…. Accused-Appellant
vs
State……… Opposite Party
Judgment
March 9th, 2014
Arms Act (XI of 1878)
Section 19A
The arms and ammunition which have been manufactured for the army supply cannot be possessed by the accused or any other ordinary persons. This creates doubt in the mind how a pistol which is manufactured for army supply only can be possessed by the accused. The accused has been in jail custody for more than one year five moths. The trial has not been commenced as yet. The appellant is granted bail to the satisfaction of the Special Tribunal. …(6 & 8)
SM Shahjahan Advocate-For the Accused Appellant.
Dr Md Bashir Ullah DAG-For the State.
Judgment
Quamrul Islam Siddique J : This appeal is directed against the order dated 9-6-2013 passed by the Learned Judge. Special Tribunal No. 1. Narsingdi in Special Tribunal Case No.11 of 2013, arising out ofNarsingdi Police Station Case No. 96 dated 30-10-2012, under Section 19A of the Arms Act rejecting the prayer for bail of the accused-appellant.
2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 30-10-2012 the informant along with his force was on duty for conducting special raid and at that time they received secret information that some arms were kept inside the shop of one Jahangir. Thereafter, they raided the shop and the accused persons tried to flee away, but they were caught by police and on search police found one automatic pistol and 6 round cartridges in the waist of the accused-appellant. Thereafter, police prepared the Seizure list in presence of the witnesses and seized the alamots on the basis of the above mentioned FIR Narsingdi PS Case No. 96 dated 30-10-2012 was recorded under Section 19A of the Arms Act. Police after investigation found prima facie case and submitted chargesheet against three accused persons.
3. SM Shahjahan the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant submits that the accused-appellant had falsely been implicated in this case out of enmity. He further submits that in the seizure list it has been stated that the recovered pistol was the property of the Army and that the pistol was manufactured for the purpose of Army supply only and that such kind of pistol cannot be in the possession of any outsider including the accused-appellant. He then submits that police arrested the accused-appellant on 30-10-2012 and since then he has been in jail custody. He lastly submits that police submitted charge sheet on 20-11-2012 but no charge has been framed against the accused-appellant by then court as yet.
4. Dr Md Bashir Ullah, the learned Deputy Attorney General appearing on behalf of the state submits that the record was transmitted to the court on 10-2-2013 and that the court fixed 17-3-2014 for framing on charge. He further submits that since the arm in question has been recovered from the waist of the accused-appellant the accused-appellant is not entitled to bail at this stage.
5. We have heard the learned advocates for both sides perused the record, FIR, Chargesheet, the seizure list and other relevant papers etc. It appears from the record that police arrested the accused on 30-10-2012. Police also submitted chargesheet on 20-11-2012. The record has been transmitted to the trial Court on 10-2-2013 but no charge has been framed against the accused appellant as yet. In the seizure list the description of the pistol has been given as under:
“???????? ???? ??? ???????? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ??. ??? ? ??? ???????? ?.?? ????? ? ????????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ????”
6. The arms and ammunition which have been manufactured for the army supply cannot be possessed by the accused or any other ordinary persons. This creates doubt in the mind how a pistol which is manufactured for army supply only can be possessed by the accused. Moreover, the accused has been in jail custody since 30-10-2012 i.e, he has been in jail for more than one year five moths. The trial has not been commenced as yet.
7. Considering all facts and circumstances of the case, we find substance in this appeal.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and under dated 9-6-2013 passed by the Learned Judge, Special tribunal No. I, Narsingdi, in Special Tribunal Case No. 11 of 2013, arising out of Narsingdi PS Case No. 96 dated 30-10-2012 under Section 19A of the Arms Act is set aside. The accused appellant is granted bail to the satisfaction of the learned judge, Special Tribunal No. I, Narsingdi till conclusion of the Special Tribunal Case No.11 of 2013. However, the Learned Judge, Special tribunal No.1, Narsingdi shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the accused appellant if the misuses the privilege of bail.
