1987 P Cr (PLP)

Syed Jamshed Ali for Petitioner. Muhammad Latif Dol for the State. Date of hearing: 24th February, 1987. Muhammad Aslam petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him and others under sections 148, 354, 365, 452 and 307/149, P.P.C. and Article 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.

2. The case was registered on 28‑12‑1986, at 2‑30 p.m. ‑on the report of Malik Muhammad Sharif wherein he alleged that on the same day at 2 p.m. co‑accused Muhammad Ramzan and his daughter co‑accused Shamim came to his house and insisted that his daughter Mst. Faiza should be sent with them. In the meantime, Muhammad Bilal alongwith seven other persons trespassed into the house. His two companions were armed with revolvers. They advanced threats and started beating the womenfolk. Mst. Faiza' ran for her life but the accused persons forcibly put her in a car and fled away from the spot. Muhammad Ramzan, father of Bilal, was, however, apprehended at the spot.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and he was not subjected to any identification test. He further submits that the principal accused, namely, Bilal and Mst. Faiza, who has also been made an accused in the case, have been admitted to interim pre‑arrest bail. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer. He submits that Muhammad Aslam petitioner‑was named as an accused by the complainant in his supplementary statement ‑and that the drivers of the two cars in which the accused persons had fled away, had also named him in their statements under section 164, Cr.P.C. it is further submitted that the application for pre‑arrest bail moved by Bilal and Mst. Faiza has since been rejected.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. It is admitted that no identification parade was held in this case. In the supplementary statement the complainant, inter alia, stated that Afzal, Hamayun Jamil and Bilal were armed with firearms and while leaving the house Shamim and Bilal also took away golden ornaments etc. At the end of the statement it has been stated that besides the accused, Muhammad Aslam alias Pappu was also there. Even in this statement there is no allegation that the petitioner was armed nor any overt act has been attributed to him. Prima facie, the position of the drivers is no better than accomplices. In the circumstances, I feel inclined to the view that a case for the enlargement of the petitioner is made out. I, therefore, admit him to bail in sum of Rs.25,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Lahore Cantt. S. G. D. /M‑372/L Bail allowed.