2017 PLP 206 (YLRN)

AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.

Applicant Ali Jaffar son of Ghulam Ali, seeks post arrest bail in FIR No. 319 of 2013, Police Station, Kharadar under section 302/34, P.P.C. Earlier the bail plea of the applicant/accused was declined by the learned court of Additional Sessions Judge-IV, South (Camp at Judicial Complex) Karachi vide order dated 30-01-2017 assailed hereinabove.

2. Necessary facts leading to the prosecution story was as envisaged in the FIR is that on the eventful day applicant/accused was together with co-accused it was about 1920 hours all of sudden three boys came and made firing due to which cousin of complainant Shahzad received bullet injuries and was shifted to Civil Hospital, where injured succumbed to his injuries and died in the hospital; hence this FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant/accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motives and mala fide intention; per learned counsel the name of the applicant/accused does not find place in the FIR; per learned counsel there is no identification parade; per learned counsel no 164 Cr.P.C. statements have been recorded which connect the applicant/accused with the alleged crime: per learned counsel applicant/accused was arrested at the statement of co-accused in a case registered under section 23(i) Sindh Arms Act, 2013; per learned counsel the applicant/ accused is behind the bars since his arrest; per learned counsel the applicant/accused deserves for the concession of bail as on the principle of consistency because co-accused Omair Ahmed on whose statement present applicant/accused was arrested has been granted bail by the learned trial Court.

4. Learned APG vehemently opposed the grant of bail but could not rebut the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant/ accused.

5. Heard and perused.

6. It is an admitted position that there is no such identification parade or the statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. before any Magistrate which would suffice totality of things and same ingredients are missing; no doubt applicant/accused is behind the bars since his arrest. Applicant was implicated on the statement of co-accused. Admittedly, the statement of co-accused is not admissible under Article 38 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Be that as it may co-accused Shoaib has earlier been granted bail by the learned trial Court on whose statement present applicant/ accused was being arrested; hence principle of consistency is very much applicable into the case of present applicant/accused.

7. In the forgoing circumstances I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant accused Ali Jaffar son of Ghulam Ali, subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One Lac) only and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Note:- The observation made herein-above are tentative assessment and would not prejudice case of the prosecution at trial. WA/A-38/Sindh Bail granted.