2002 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Umair Mohsin for the Complainant. M.A. Hameed for the State. Petitioner seeks post‑arrest bail in F.I.R. No.93.of 2000, dated 30‑7‑2000 under sections 392/394, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Dahranwala, District Bahawalnagar.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith two other persons duly armed had deprived the complainant of his motorcycle and as a result of firing of the complainant in his self‑defence, two of them were injured whereas the complainant was also given injuries by the third accused, who was armed with a dagger, on his chest and left flank. Petitioner applied for bail which was declined by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chishtian, vide order, dated 5‑1‑2001. Hence, the instant petition.

3. Arguments have been heard and record perused

4. Stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly name of the petitioner does not appear in the F.I.R., that the occurrence had taken place at 9‑15 p.m., that petitioner was not put to identification test to connect him with the commission of this offence, that the only piece of evidence involving him in the commission of this offence pertains to the recovery of motorcycle which is alleged to have been recovered at the instance of the present petitioner as well as Javed Akram on 4‑8‑2000, that the other piece of evidence connecting him with the commission of offence is recovery of dagger which was effected on 11‑8‑2000. He submits that as the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R., it was incumbent upon the prosecution to put him to identification test, failing which his case requires further probe. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon Farman Ali v. The State 1997 SCMR 971 and Muhammad Rafique v. The State 1997 SCMR

412. So far as the recovery of the motorcycle is concerned, he has also submitted that the said evidence is of no use to the prosecution and has placed reliance upon Muhammad Tariq v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 1840. He further submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 31‑7‑2000 and is in jail since then and only charge has been framed in the instant case‑till today.

5. Conversely the bail application has been opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant assisted by the learned State Counsel.

6. The stand of the learned counsel for the complainant is that two of the companions of the petitioner were arrested on 31‑7‑2000 while they were being transported on a Dala by one Muhammad Iqbal, that the petitioner though was arrested on the same night yet as he was not subjected to any identification test because he was identified to be a person involved in this case by the complainant and one Muhammad Riaz P. W . whose statement was recorded on 31‑7‑2000, that evidence of recovery of dagger as well as of motorcycle connects him with the commission of this offence, that even the medico‑legal certificate corroborates the prosecution version showing injuries on the person of complainant.

7. As per contents of F.I.R. petitioner has not been nominated therein. He has been assigned the role of inflicting injuries on the person of complainant which stands corroborated from the medico‑legal certificate. However, it is fact that petitioner was not put to identification test as required by the authorities laid down by the superior Courts. The petitioner in the instant case has been arrested on 31‑7‑2000 and is in jail since then. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was not subjected to identification test and is in jail for the last one year without trial having been commenced, his case squarely falls within provisions or section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./M‑901/L?????????