2010 PLP 126 (YLR)

MRS. QAISER IQBAL, J.--Applicant Abdullah alias Sardar alias A. Sattar is facing trial in Crime No.197 of 2008, registered at Police Station, Mithadar, under section 392/34, P.P.C. First Information Report discloses that on the fateful day complainant Abid Ali was proceeding on his motorcycle to his home via Shahra-e-Liaquat, two culprits aged about 27 years and 28 years, similar to Baloch, robbed his motorcycle on show of force, proceeded towards Aram Bagh. It is stated the complainant would be in a position to identify if before arrest the culprits. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that though the description of the culprit is mentioned in the First Information Report yet he was not put to identification parade, after his arrest, nearby by city court, had sustained a gun shot injury on his right foot, thereby his three toes of left foot were damaged. Applicant was admitted in Civil Hospital, Surgery Ward, on the basis of order passed by a Division bench of this Court in C.P. No.D-1679/2008. The applicant could not provide proper treatment, surgery as advised by the doctors, has not been conducted, thereby the condition of the applicant is deteriorating day by day and there is every likelihood that his left leg might not be amputated. It is next urged that in the absence of positive evidence connoting that the robbed article was secured from the possession of the applicant, the case of the applicant requires further inquiry as contemplated under subsection (2) section 497, Cr.P.C. Learned State Counsel has insisted that the report be called from Jaul doctor or from the Civil Hospital, in order to verify the existing status of the injuries caused to the applicant. I have considered the arguments advance at bar. In case of Farman Ali v. The State 1997 SCMR 971, the dictum laid down is that the holding of identification test becomes necessary in cases where names of the culprits are not given in the F.I.R. holding of such test is not only a check against false implication but is a good piece of evidence against genuine culprits. It is further held that the holding of identification test cannot be dispensed with simply because accused who had allegedly committed the robbery had been subsequently found in possession of the robbed articles. In the present case, complainant is a solitary eye-witness of the robbed motor cycle, after arrest of the applicant the ought to have been produced for identification test through him, which was absolutely I necessary in the case. Adverting to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant that the health of the applicant is deteriorating day by day and his life is a stake, on account of infection in the left leg, which has made his life miserable. Although, the applicant was found in possession of the robbed property at the best against him would fall under section 411 of P.P.C. In any view of the matter, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to the concession of the bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. H.B.T./A-70/K Bail granted.