Find a Lawyer

Criminal Bail Application No. 547 of 1986, decided on 15th October, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 459 & 460/34‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused not named in F.I.R.‑‑Witnesses not identifying accused at time of occurrence‑‑ Identification‑parade held after 8 days though witnesses were available‑‑Identification parade for co‑accused held four days earlier than for that of accused‑‑Accused arrested as suspect‑ Police had no reason to delay identification parade when witnesses were available and accused was also in custody‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances.

P L D 1981 S C 142 and 1984 P Cr. L J 3029 ref.

Shaikh Rehman Bux for Applicant.

Riaz Ahmed for the State.

This is application for bail on behalf of accused Bashir Ahmed son of Noor Muhammad in a case registered under sections 459 and 460/34, P.P.C. in Police Station, Kotri on 27‑3‑1986 at 0445 hours.

Case of the prosecution is that on the night of incident, complainant Abdul Qayoom alongwith his father Khuda Bux and brother Abdul Sattar were sleeping in their house. At about 3‑35 a.m. complainant heard a noise and woke up. They came out from the room. In the meanwhile, one thief started running from the house. They raised cries of thief, thief and Khuda Bux came in front of that culprit who caused hatchet injury to Khuda Bux on his shoulder who he fell down. Complainant and Abdul Sattar came to rescue their father but in the meanwhile another thief fired at Abdul Sattar and he also fell down. Thereafter, Suleman Azizur Rehman and Bashir Ahmed Rajput came running and saw that 3 accused were running away. Abdul Sattar, died due to injuries.

Shaikh Rehman Bux, learned counsel for the applicant argued that name of applicant does not appear in the F.I.R. The identification parade was arranged after 8 days. It is also contended by the learned counsel that applicant is known to P.W. Azizur Rehman and complainant party as he was previously challaned in a case filed by the prosecution witnesses in which Azizur Rehman and deceased Sattar were prosecution witnesses. In support, he has produced said copy of challan of that case. He has referred to the case reported in P L D 1981 S C 142 and 1984 P Cr. L J 3029.

In this unfortunate incident one Abdul Sattar lost his life and Khuda Bux sustained injuries. Name of applicant does not appear in the F.I.R. but it is mentioned by complainant Abdul Qayoom that they have suspicion that a person who committed theft of Azizur Rehman 2 months ago might have come with other culprits‑ for the purpose of committing offence. Azizur Rehman and his son Suleman and Bashir Ahmed are also the eye‑witnesses of the incident. They have stated that they saw 3 culprits in the electric light. They have also stated that about 1 months ago, one thief namely Bashir Ahmed Panwhar committed theft in his house and was caught by him and neighbours including deceased Abdul Sattar, Qayoom and others who at that time told them that he will take revenge from them, therefore, they have suspicion that Bashir Ahmed might have come alongwith the other culprits for committing some offence. These witnesses were not joined in the identification parade of the present accused for the reasons best known to the police. They have not identified accused at the time of incident. The applicant was arrested as a suspect from the Railway Station Kotri on 30‑3‑1986 but identification parade was held on 8‑4‑1986 through complainant and injured Khuda Bux. There is force in the arguments of learned counsel about delay in arranging identification parade. From B the papers, it appears that police arranged identification parade of one suspect namely Ali son of Muhammad Khaskheli on 2‑4‑1986 through complainant and prosecution witnesses Azizur Rehman Suleman, Bashir Ahmed and Khuda Bux. In these circumstances, police had no reason to delay the identification parade of the present applicant when witnesses were available on 2‑4‑1986 and applicant Bashir was also in custody.

For the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Applicant is admitted to bail on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge, Kotri.

S . A . Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.