2001 (PLP)

Present applicant is seeking bail in Crime No.9 of 2001 registered with Police Station Ghouspur under sections 324, 353, 401, 427, P.P.C. who has been sent up to face trial alongwith co-accused Haji and Gap and two unidentified persons. He moved bail application before the trial Court but without success. The prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on 23-1-2001 complainant S.H.O. Gul Muhammad Mahar alongwith his subordinate staff, namely ASI Abdul Qudoos, P.C. Allah Diwayo P.C. Abdul Rashid and driver Mumtaz Ali left Police Station for patrolling vide Entry No.18, dated 23-1-2001. During partrolling they received spy information that six, armed persons were standing near Khariro Shakh' for committing some offence. On such information, complainant called other staff from Police Station on wireless. The complainant proceeded there and when at 1930 hours they reached near ' Kariro Shakh' they saw on the headlights of police van that six persons with open faces standing on southern side of road. Out of them, two had guns and four had klashnikoves. The complainant party stopped mobile and got down but the accused persons started firing at police party. The police party also tired in their defence. In the meantime the other police officials H.C. Ghulam Shabir and others also reached there who also fired at accused. During tiring A.S.I. Abdul Qudoos sustained injuries. The firing continued for about 15/20 minutes, thereafter accused persons went, away. H.C. Ghulam Shabir and P.C. Abdul Rasheed disclosed that they have identified four accused to be Gaji, Haji who were with guns, Ibrahim and Mangih with Klashnikoves. The remaining two accused would be identified by them if they saw again. The complainant party found A.S.I. Abdul Qudoos who has sustained injuries on head, left side of abdomen and left hand and he was bleeding. The police van was also damaged. The complainant took injured with the help of P.C. Abdul Rasheed and Abdul Hameed to Rural Health Centre Ghouspur and then went to police station where he lodged the F.I.R. Mr. Abdul Aakeem Khan Bijarani Advocate for the applicant has contended that although in F.I.R. H.C. Ghulam Shabir and P.C. Abdul Rasheed have disclosed that they have identified four accused and they have given the names in the F.I.R. but how their names became known to afore named H.C. Ghulam Shabir and P. C. Abdul Rasheed is' lacking in the matter and source of identification has not been described by H.C. Ghulam Shabir and P.C. Abdul Rasheed and there is no acquaintance

of the present applicant with the afore named police men and the case of the present applicant becomes the case of further enquiry. He has further contended that it is not clear from the record as to who caused the injuries to injured Abdul Qudoos ASI who has received three injuries on head, abdomen and forearm., He has further contended that it is case of further enquiry and has prayed for grant of bail. On the other hand, Mr. Abdul Fatah Mughal for the State has opposed to the grant of bail to the present applicant and has contended that the present applicant has been nominated in the FA.R. alongwith co-accused and he was identified by H.C. Ghulam Shabir and P.C. Abdul Rasheed and they have fired on-- police .party which resulted in three injuries sustained by Abdul Qudoos, A.S.I. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. Admittedly the contents of the F.I.R. disclosed that the present applicant alongwith co-accused has been identified by H.C. Ghulam Shabbir and P.C. Abdul Rasheed but nowhere they have disclosed their source of identification with regard to the names of the present applicant and co-accused and I have not been able to see the name :of father of the applicant namely Gaji and Haji in the F.I.R. Admittedly A.S.I. Abdul Qudoos has sustained three injuries which is not clear from the record at whose hands the A.S.I. received fire arm injuries as it is a claim of the prosecution that all the six accused fired upon police party and thereby A.S.I. Abdul Qudoos sustained three injuries. The identity of the main, accused is debatable in the matter as it has not been disclosed by Mr. Abdul Fatah Mughal, Advocate for the State that who caused injuries to injured, A.S.I. Abdul Qudoos when it is a claim of the prosecution that all the accused tired upon police party and thereafter, A.S.I: Abdul Qudoos sustained three injuries and Mr. Mughal has not been able to point out from the record as to who is the main accused who caused the injuries to injured A.S.I. Abdul Qudoos. Reliance can be placed on a case reported in 1985 PCr.LJ 2323 where this Court has held that identity of main accused who caused the injuries. when remaining doubtful or debatable, case, held is falling within purview of further enquiry and in the instant case the identity of the main accused is at the stake. and it is not clear from the record as to who specifically caused injuries to injured A.S.I. Abdul Qudoos. It is also not clear from the record as to how the names of the co-accused and present applicant became known to H.C. Ghulam Shabir and P.C. Abdul Rasheed and the source of their identification is lacking in the matter and the reliance can be placed of a case namely Muhammad Nadir v. The State reported in 1991 PCr.LJ 4 wherein this Court has granted bail to the accused when complainant had not stated in the F.I.R. that he knew accused. prior to the incident intimately. No identification test was held and the bail was granted to the accused by this Court. In the instant case the H.C. Ghulam Shabir and P.C. Abdul Rasheed have not stated in their 161, Cr.P.C. statements that they knew the present applicant intimately previously nor it has been stated by complainant S.H.O: Gul Muhammad Mahar of Police Station, Ghouspur that the accused were known to the police men previously intimately. It has been further stated by complainant in F.I.R. that both the witnesses have further stated that if they will see again the accused, they can identify them and in that event no identification parade has been held by police and in the event of failure of holding of identification test the benefit of doubt goes to the present applicant. At the moment, the case of the present applicant calls for further probe and there are controversial issues involved in the matter and prima facie the present applicant has been able to make out a case for grant bail and accordingly he is granted bail in the sum of Rs. 200,000 with P.R. bond in the like amount to the. satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./M-206/K Bail granted.