2001 PLP 772 (YLR)

1995 SCMR 127; Ali Ahmed v. The State 1987 MLD 2592 and Akhtiar Muhammad v. The State 1987 PCr.LJ 2423 ref. Shahbaz Ali Brohi for Applicant. Abdul Fattah Mughul for the State. Present applicant is seeking bail in Crime No.19 of 2000 registered with Police Station Khanpur under sections 302, 324, 337-A(ii) Qissas and Diyat Ordinance, who has been sent up to face trial in the Court of Special Judge, STA, Khanpur. He (applicant) had moved bail application before the trial Court but without success. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the name of the present applicant does not appear in the F. I. R. and, he was arrested on 18-2-2000 and thereafter on the same day he has been subjected to identification parade, which was supervised by the learned Civil Judge and F.C.M., Khanpur through witnesses, who claim to have seen the accused during the commission of offence, and has drawn our attention on the memo. of identification parade (Mashimama) at page No.37 of the bail application that the signature of the S.H.O Khanpur Police Station, namely, Fida Hussain Lahori is there and in these circumstances the only piece of evidence against the present applicant is identification parade, which cannot be relied and has lost the sanctity in view of the presence of the signature of the police officer/Investigating Officer. He has further submitted that it can be easily assessed that the identification parade has been held under the supervision of the S.H.O. and the sanctity of the identification parade is lost. He has further stated that police have recovered one SBBL shotgun from the possession of the applicant and a separate case has been registered under section 13(d), Arms Ordinance and he is the victim of enmity. On the other hand Mr. Abdul Fattah Mughul has given no objection to the grant of bail on the ground that the only piece of evidence against the present applicant is identification parade and which has not been held properly and the mashirnama of identification parade has been signed by the Investigating Officer. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties at the Bar. Admittedly the prosecution has collected the piece of evidence against the present applicant, the identification parade, which has been held on the same day as the accused is said to have been arrested on 18-2-2000 and the identification parade has not been held according to the parameters laid down by the superior Courts. We have examined the Mashirnama of identification parade and the witnesses, who claim to have seen the accused during the commission of offence, have not described any role played by the afore-named applicant during the commission of the offence and we are being fortified by law reported in 1995 SCMR 127, 128 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has acquitted the accused on the ground that the witnesses who claim to have seen the accused during the commission of the offence have not ascribed the role played by them during the commission of the offence and the sanctity of such identification is lost. We have also very carefully examined the Mashirnama of identification parade, which has been placed before us and we have seen with jade and critical eye that the same has been signed by the Investigating Officer S.H.O., namely, Fida Hussain, Lahori and his signature on the memo of the identification parade has shattered the case of prosecution. In this respect reference can be made of a case Ali Ahmed v. The State reported 1987 MLD 2592 wherein this Court has granted bail to the accused on the ground that the identification parade was held in presence of the Investigating Officer and memo of identification parade was prepared by the Investigating Officer and not by Magistrate. Reliance can also be placed in a case Akhtiar Muhammad v. The State reported in 1987 PCr.LJ 2423 and accordingly the 'signature which has been put by the Investigating Officer has given fatal blow to the, identification parade and the, sanctity of such identification parade is lost. In view of the aforementioned decision and the law given by the Honourable Supreme Court in 1995 SCMR 127, 128, the case of the present applicant becomes a case of further enquiry and he is accordingly granted bail in the sum of Rs.500,000 (Rupees five lacs) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. Application is accordingly allowed. H.B.T./A-201/K Bail granted.