2005 PLP 1637 (YLR)

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

S.497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.392/411--Bail, grant of

Accused was not nominated in the F.I.R.

Identification parade of the accused was held after five days of his arrest for which prosecution had failed to give any plausible explanation-- Accused, at the time of commencement of the identification parade, had objected in clear Words that he had been shown in the Police station to the informant

No recovery had been made from the accused. "Case against accused, prima facie, appeared to be doubtful and required further probe

Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Muhammad Ramzan Khalid Joiya for Petitioner. Tanvir Haider Buzdar for the State. Date of hearing: 11th October, 2004. Tahir Manzoor, the petitioner arrested on 25-11-2003 in case F.I.R. No.401 of 2003 lodged with Police Station, Yousufwala District, Sahiwal on the application of one Ch. Muhammad Ali on 18-11-2002 under sections 392/411, P. P. C., has filed this bail after arrest petition after he could not get the bail concession from the learned Magistrate Ist Class, Sahiwal on 17-3-2004 and on 30-3-2004 from learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not nominated in the F.I.R. and was arrested near his residence in Chak No.5/82 of Thal Development Authority and no recovery was effected' from him. As regards the identification parade, the learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner had objected before the conduct of proceedings of identification parade that he was shown to the informant/complainant in the police station. The learned counsel has also submitted that five days earlier to the identification parade, the petitioner was arrested but was kept in the police station, continuously so as to get his identification known to the informant. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of State has opposed the grant of bail with this allegation that the petitioner has been identified by Muhammad Shafi, driver of the Tractor in the identification parade. So the petitioner is not entitled to grant of bail.

2. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State counsel, I have found that the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. and the sole evidence, which can possibly be adduced against the petitioner is that of the identification parade, which was objected by the petitioner at the time of its commencement in clear words that he was shown in the police station to the informant. Prima facie, these circumstances and evidence connecting the accused with the commission of crime has created a doubtful atmosphere requiring its full-fledged probe and examination at the final trial stage. There is yet another aspect of the case, the petitioner who was arrested five days earlier to the identification parade, no plausible reason has been given out by the prosecution as to why they had kept five days after the arrest of the petitioner and had not got conducted earlier the accused's identification parade. No recovery having been made from the petitioner and no other evidence having been collected as against the petitioner. All these circumstances have attracted the application of benefit of doubt for the purpose of bail to be given at this bail stage, to the petitioner. As the petitioner's case has' fallen within the further inquiry realm, therefore, the petitioner is granted bail after arrest in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. N.H.Q./T-77/L Bail granted.