1997 PLP 1441 (MLD)

Shakeel Akhtar Hashmi for Petitioner. Muhammad Saleem for the State. Date of hearing: 20th October, 1996. On the night falling between 29/30‑10‑1995 four persons having the fire‑arms are alleged to have entered the house of Ghulam Muhammad, brother of Muhammad Akram complainant in Mauza Malikpura. Those persons are stated to be aged between 20 years to 30 years. They are said to have injured Ghulam Muhammad and his wife Mst. Zainib Bibi. Those persons forcibly took away the gold ornaments and cash amount in the sum of Rs.29,000 and made good their escape. About the occurrence Crime Case No.193 dated 30‑10‑1995 stands registered at Police Station Galaywal, District Lodhran under section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. Muhammad Sadiq petitioner was arrested as the accused on 7‑12‑1995. An, identification parade was conducted on 13‑12‑1995 wherein the complainant anal the injured P.W. Ghulam Muhammad are stated to have identified him. The bail plea of this petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lodhran, on the grounds that the co‑accused have not been arrested and that this petitioner was identified in the identification parade by P. Ws. Hence this petition with the same desire.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State Counsel and gone through the record before me. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are that according to the recitals of the F. I. R the respective age of the accused persons was between 20 years to 30 years while by the instant matter the age of Muhammad Sadiq petitioner is mentioned by the police 38 years and that nothing has been recovered at the instance of Muhammad Sadiq petitioner‑accused. He added that the involvement of the petitioner is that of further inquiry. On the contrary learned counsel for the State canvassed that Muhammad Sadiq was identified by the P.Ws. in the identification parade and that the injuries on the person of Ghulam Muhammad and his wife Mst. Zainib Bibi are enough to corroborate the aforesaid ingredient of the prosecution evidence. Ace6rding to him it is not a case for the admission of Muhammad Sadiq petitioner to bail. My view is that it is a case of admission of Muhammad Sadiq petitioner‑accused to bail. According to the police record the age of Muhammad Sadiq is 38 years while in the F.I.R. the respective age of the accused persons was between 20 years to 30 years. It is a matter of common knowledge that the police officers show the age of the accused less when he is a person of advanced age and show the age of an accused person more when he is aged about 15/16 years. Keeping in view this aspect of the matter the description of Muhammad Sadiq petitioner is not in consonance with the F.I.R. as to the age of the accused persons. The identification parade without corroboration cannot be held to be sacrosanct. Nothing has been recovered at the instance of this petitioner who remained on physical remand. If some of the accused have not been arrested that is no ground for depriving Muhammad Sadiq petitioner the legal discretion of this Court. In the circumstances it is held that the case of the prosecution against Muhammad Sadiq petitioner‑accused is that of further inquiry who is entitled to be admitted to bail.

3. I, therefore, accept this application and admit Muhammad Sadiq petitioner‑accused to bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Lodhran with the direction to appear before the learned Trial Court on each date of hearing failing which the Trial Court may cancel his bail.

4. Copy Dasti subject to payment of usual charges. N.H.Q./M‑223/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail allowed.