2012 PLP 1260 (YLR)

SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.

F.I.R. No.8 of 2011 was recorded at Police Station, Khanpur Mahar on 19-1-2011 at 6-30 p.m. for an incident alleged to have taken place two and half hours earlier. Complainant stated that he along with his subordinate staff went for patrolling duly when he received spy information that a notorious dacoit along with his companions had concealed two abductees. The Police party moved towards pointed place. They saw six persons armed with K.Ks. Police party reached near them. All six persons were identified including the present applicant. They were asked to surrender but they resorted to firing. The fire was returned. One of the persons of the dacoits party laid down his arms; others managed to behind dunes. Two persons emerged with their bands tied and they stated that they were the abductees. The arrested co-accused also gave names of his accomplices. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that entire encounter is a fake encounter because it is stated in the F.I.R. that thought the firing continued for 25 minutes, no person has been injured and not even a vehicle of Police has been grazed. He submitted that alleged abductees have not been recovered from his possession but have been recovered from possession of co-accused Allah Warrayo. He submitted that the applicant has been behind bars for 8 months and charge has been framed but no witness has so far been examined. He submitted that perusal of F.I.R. reveals Nazir and Asghar, who had identical roles as per F.I.R., have been placed in Column

2. There is no evidence that the applicant abducted two persons or kept them after their abduction. He stated that he has been implicated in statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. of the alleged abductees, which was recorded on the same day when these were recovered. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that charge, alleged against him, is under section 365, P.P.C., which carries punishment of seven years as no demand of ransom is alleged. Learned counsel relied upon Ghulam Khan v. The State 200 MLD

739. Learned A.P.-G. contended that the applicant has not only been identified with the gang of dacoits, who had custody of the two alleged abductees but has also been stated to be a member of gang by co-accused Allah Warrayo, who had been arrested. He submitted that there is sufficient material in the form of statements of the alleged abductees. In this regard, he relied upon Zakir Khan and others v. The State, 1995 SCMR 1793. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and have also gone through the record. In Zakir Khan's case (supra) it was held by the Supreme Court that in cases where the alleged abductee had remained with the accused sufficiently long time and not only identifies them by their faces but also identifies them by their names, holding of identification parade would not be a mandatory requirement. In the present case, the applicant is identified by not only abductees but also by the co-accused and, therefore, there was no requirement that identification parade must have been held. However, there are two aspects because of which, in my opinion, the applicant is entitled to bail. Firstly, it is claimed that encounter took place for 25 minutes and no one has been injured. Police mobiles were claimed to be there and no bullet has even grazed a Police mobile. If the version in the F.I.R. is to be prima facie believed, one has to reach a conclusion that our Police is probably one of the worst shot. Secondly, the offence is alleged under sections 365, 368, 324 and 353, P.P.C. As far as sections 365, 368 and 353, P.P.C. are concerned, they do not, in any case, fall in the prohibitory degree. As far as section 324, P.P.C. is concerned, no one has been injured and it is, therefore, subject of further inquiry whether there was any intention to commit Qatl-e-Amd or not. Consequently, this bail application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be admitted to bail subject to his executing P.R bond in the sum of Rs.200,000 (Two hundred thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. M.W.A./R-4/K Bail granted.