2004 PLP 1490 (YLR)

Muhammad Azeem Panhwar for the State. Date of hearing: 20th January, 2004. By this order I intend to dispose of criminal bail application filed on behalf of applicant Manzoor Ahmed Chachar in a case bearing Crime No. 103 of 2001, for an offence under sections 324, 120(b) read with 34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Bhittai Nagar. The bail plea of the applicant was declined by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, vide order dated 30‑7‑2003. In brief, the prosecution story as per F.I.R. is that on 19‑11‑2001 at 0200 hours Inspector Aijaz Ahmed Tareen, S.H.O. of Hali Road Police Station was attacked upon by three unknown assailants, who had come on a motorcycle, by making firing with pistols at Katcha Link Road leading from Grid Station Qasimabad to National Highway. It is alleged that he alongwith his wife, mother‑in‑law and driver P.C. Akhtar Hussain was returning back in his private car from Citizen Colony, Hyderabad by having a look at the house, which he wanted to get on rental basis for his family. As per F.I.R., in the firing of the accused, the complainant, his wife, mother‑in‑law and driver P.C. Akhtar Hussain sustained injuries. Such F.I.R. was later on lodged by the complainant at Police Station Bhittai Nagar. The investigation followed and in due course the applicant was sent up to stand trial in the Court of learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned State Counsel and perused the record. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the case against his client, namely, Manzoor Ahmed Chachar is false who has been involved in the background of enmity and suspicion. It has further been contended that the name of the applicant does not find place in the F.I.R. No descriptions or features were mentioned therein. Nothing incriminating has been secured from the possession of the applicant. According to the learned counsel, there are two pieces of evidence against the applicant; i.e., identification test of the applicant held in presence of the Civil Judge and F.C.M., Hyderabad and the next piece of evidence against the applicant is the statement of P.W. Dodo recorder under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. It has also been argued that the applicant has remained in custody since last two years and the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in a foreseeable future. It has also been pinpointed by the learned counsel for the applicant that no charge has been framed as yet. As far the first piece of evidence, which is the identification test of the applicant is concerned i.e., in presence of the Magistrate, which according to him, is hollow formality devoid of any legal sanctity inasmuch as according to him, no role is attributed in the identification parade. It has also been argued that no certificate has been appended at the foot of memo. of identification parade in the light of the High Court and Supreme Court decisions. It has lastly been argued that the identification parade has taken place after the delay of five days from the arrest of the applicant and no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming. On all these scores it has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that it is a fit case where the applicant could be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel has relied upon Mehmood Ahmad v. State 1995 SCMR 127, Imamdine v. Pathan 2002 PCr.LJ 1892 and Shafique Ahmed v. State 2002 PCr.LJ 518 in support of his contentions. As against the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant, it has been contended by learned State Counsel that there are two valuable pieces of evidence against the applicant, namely, the identification test of the applicant in presence of the Magistrate and secondly the statement of P.W. Dodo recorded under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. According to the learned counsel, 164, Cr.P.C. statement recorded in presence of the Magistrate is substantive piece of evidence. On these counts learned State Counsel argues that it is not a case where the applicant could be enlarged on bail. However, the learned State Counsel has failed to refer any citation in support of his contentions. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the respective parties and perused the record. Admittedly the name of the applicant does not find place in the F.I.R. No descriptions or features of the applicant have been given therein. Nothing incriminating is secured from the possession of the applicant. Perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that no specific part is assigned to the applicant. No certificate has been appended at the foot of the memo. of identification test in the light of the High Court and the Supreme Court decisions. The identification test was held after the delay of five days of the arrest of applicant. In the circumstances I am of the view that the arguments raised by learned counsel for tile applicant appear to be weighty in comparison to the arguments raised by learned State Counsel and consequently I allow this application and grant bail to applicant Manzoor Ahmed Chachar on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.200,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court: Criminal Bail Application No.716 of 2003 stands imposed of. H.B.T./M‑30/K Bail granted.