2013 PLP 208 (YLR)

FAROOQ ALI CHANNA, J.

By this application, applicant/accused seek bail, as he was booked in Crime No.433 of 2011 offence under section 395, P.P.C. of Police Station Defence lodged by complainant Shagufta Rizwan for committing dacoity in the Allied Bank Defence Housing Authority Karachi. It is stated in the F.I.R. that on 27-10-2011 some unknown persons entered in the bank and on gun point overpowered the complainant and other employees of the bank and thereafter looted away American Currency 1355 dollars, Ponds 695 , Uuros 1340, Prize Bond of Rs.27250 and Pakistani Rupees 32,97,316 such F.I.R. was lodged on the same day. As per prosecution case, present applicant along with other co-accused was arrested by CID Police after encounter and during interrogation accused admitted the guilt of this offence therefore they were also arrested in this crime and were produced for identification test before the learned Judicial Magistrate, through complainant who identified them properly, hence after completing investigation challan was submitted. I have heard Syed Amir Haider Shah Naqvi, Advocate for the applicant. He has contended that the case is false and fabricated. Applicant/accused was arrested by CID police in F.I.R. No.179 of 2011 and in that crime he has been granted bail by the trial Court. Learned Advocate has further contended that identification test was held after 10 days of the arrest of the accused hence same has no value in the eyes of law. Learned Advocate has further contended that another witness brought before the Judicial Magistrate for identification test of the accused had admitted before the Judicial Magistrate that photograph of the accused were shown to him therefore he was not allowed to participate in the identification parade. The advocate has further contended that no recovery has been effected from the present applicant/accused. He further contended that during custody applicant/accused was tortured severally by the police and on his complaint Judicial Magistrate referred him to hospital for medical examination and Certificate. The Medical Officer issued medical certificate confirming the injuries on the person of applicant/accused. The admission of accused before the police was the result of above torture hence a case of further enquiry is made out. Learned A.P.G. has opposed the grant of bail and has contended that accused was identified by the complainant who is eye-witness of the incident in identification parade held before Judicial Magistrate which is a strong piece of evidence against the applicant/accused. He further contended that in dacoity cases the recovery of stolen property is immaterial if the accused is identified to be one of the associate of the person involved in the dacoity. He further states that no enmity has been alleged against the complainant for false implication of the accused hence no case for bail is made out. I have considered the argument and perused the record. Admittedly name of the applicant is not mentioned in the F.I.R. nor any recovery of robbed property was made from the accused. The sole evidence against the applicant/accused was that he was identified by the complainant and picked up in identification held before the Judicial Magistrate to be one of the companions of the dacoits, entered in the bank and committed the dacoity, such identification test was held after 6 months of the incident and after 10 days of the arrest of accused. Furthermore it is mentioned in the remarks of identification report endorsed by the Judicial Magistrate that P.W. Muhammad Hussain was called who on enquiry stated that photograph of the accused person were shown to him therefore he was not allowed to participate in the identification test. This endorsement makes the sanctity of identification test doubtful. Furthermore as per F.I.R. there were 6/7 other persons available in bank at the time of incident and they had also seen the accused person but none of them was called for identification test of the accused. As such prima facie case of further enquiry is made out. Hence I admit the accused on bail subject to furnishing the solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. MWA/M-95/K Bail granted.