1992 P Cr (PLP)

S. 497

Bail, grant of

Accused admittedly was not known to prosecution witnesses in whose presence police raided place of occurrence, but in spite of that those prosecution witnesses were not called upon to identify accused by means of identification test on his arrest

Nothing incriminating having been secured from possession of accused, mere mention of his name in F.I.R., would not ipso facto establish his initial presence and subsequent running away from Wardat

Case requiring further inquiry, bail was granted to accused. Raja Sikandar Khan Yasir for Applicant. M.I. Memon, Addl. A.-G. for the State. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the present applicant was neither arrested on the spot nor any incriminating article was found from his possession. The learned Advocate further submitted, that there is nothing in the statement of prosecution witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. to suggest the source from where the name of the applicant became known to the raiding party. In addition to this admittedly this applicant was not known to P.Ws. Zardar and Fazal Badshah, the Mashirs in whose presence police raided the K.M.C. Water Compound, but in spite of this applicant was not put to identification test. In -view of this fact the learned Advocate for the applicant submitted, that the case against the present applicant would require further inquiry at the stage of trial, so as to connect him with the three co-accused on the spot, as alleged in F.I.R. The learned Additional Advocate-General for State opposes the above application on the ground that the name of the applicant is mentioned in F.I.R. I have taken into consideration the submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and I have also gone through the F.I.R. as well as 161, Cr.P.C. statements of the prosecution witnesses, which are available with the learned Additional Advocate-General. It is an admitted position, that the present applicant was not known to P.Ws. Zardar and Fazal Badshah, but in spite of this these P.Ws. were not called upon to identify the applicant by means of identification test, on his arrest. However, nothing incriminating was secured from the possession of the A present applicant and as such mere mention of the present applicant's name m the F.I.R. in the manner as it was done, in my opinion, would not ipso facto establish his initial presence and subsequent running away from Wardat. Keeping in view these facts, in my opinion, the case against the present applicant would require further inquiry under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. and, therefore, I allow the above application and direct that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.30,000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./W-65/K Bail granted,