2006 PLP 81 (MLD)

ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.

This application under section 497, Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant, who is one of the accused allegedly involved in Crime No.290 of 2002, Police Station Clifton for the commission of offence punishable under section 302/34, P.P.C.

2. According to the prosecution story, one Muhammad Irfan, the brother of complainant Abdul Wahab was murdered on 29-10-2002 at 11-50 hours, by two unknown persons riding on black motorcycle Honda

125. The complainant was informed on telephone about such incident whereupon he rushed to place of incident, shifted the dead-body of his deceased brother to Jinnah Hospital and then lodged such complaint on the same day at 1515 hours.

3. After about 17 days of the incident, on 15-11-2002, the applicant was arrested and on 20-12-2002 challan was submitted before the Trial Court, mentioning the name of applicant as accused in custody and also disclosing the names of two other accused Muhammad Javed and Abdul Wahab as absconding accused.

4. Mr. Aamir Mansoob Qureshi, learned counsel for the applicant contended that after the arrest of applicant, neither his identification test was held, nor any recovery has been made from him. Further, none of the prosecution witnesses in their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. have implicated him in the commission of the crime, even two witnesses examined in Court have also not implicated him with the commission of crime. The applicant is in custody for over 18 months, his case needs further inquiry, therefore, he is entitled for grant of bail. To add force to his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the case of Ejaz Ahmed v. The State (1997 SCMR 1279) and the other case of Muhammad Arif v . The State (1997 SCMR 462).

5. Mr. Sardaruddin Qureshi, learned State Counsel did not dispute that the applicant is not a nominated accused in the crime, after his arrest which is shown on 5-11-2002 i.e. after seventeen days (17 days) of the incident; he was not put to any identification test; no recovery was made from him, and that the witnesses examined in Court up till now have also not implicated him with the commission of crime.

6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case record. Undisputed facts of the case are that the applicant is not a nominated accused in the crime. After his arrest, he was not put to identification test. No recovery of any weapon or other incriminating material has been made from him and the two witnesses examined in Court by the prosecution have also not implicated him in the crime. The only piece of evidence available with the prosecution against the applicant is his alleged admission before police by pointing out the place of incident, A which is of no evidentiary value. Considering all these aspects, I am of the view that case of the applicant needs further inquiry, which entitles him for grant of bail. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail, on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.3,00,000 (Rupees Three Lac) and P.R.' Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. H.B.T./M-294/K Bail granted.