1987 PLP 1778 (MLD)

Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered at Police Station Khuddian, District Kasur under Section 302/34 PPC, on the ground that his name has not been mentioned in the FIR and that although the complainant is alleged to have made a supplementary statement on the same day, naming the petitioner as one of the assailants but later on the complainant during hearing of the bail petition of Liaquat co-accused of the petitioner, whose name was also not mentioned in the FIR had submitted an affidavit that he had not made any supplementary statement. Bail is also being sought on the ground that no identification parade was held. Learned counsel added that according to his latest instructions all the eye-witnesses named in the F.I.R. barring the complainant have also sworn affidavits exonerating Ismail alias Achhu, named in the F.I.R. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that in view of the above circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

2. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that the affidavit said to have been filed by the complainant, in fact was intended to support Liaquat and not the petitioner before this Court. Learned counsel added that according to record the six persons named in the F.I.R. to have witnessed the occurrence have in their statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, named the petitioner and have stated that he had caused injuries to the deceased with a chhuri. According to him, blood-stained chhuri has also been recovered at his instance.

3. There is no doubt that the petitioner is not named in the -F.I.R. but the six persons named in the F.I.R. to have witnessed the occurrence specifically named him to have participated in the occurrence by inflicting chhuri blows to the deceased. The chhuri is also stated to have been recovered from him.

4. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the affidavit filed by the complainant during hearing of the bail petition of Liaquat, can be clearly read to mean that no supplementary statement had been made by the complainant in which the name of the petitioner was introduced, has not impressed me for, the reason that during hearing of this bail petition, earlier on two occasions I had asked the learned counsel for the petitioner that if it is a fact that the complainant had not made the supplementary statement, he should produce/file the affidavit of the complainant exonerating the petitioner but learned counsel has not been able to do. However, he has conceded that he had informed his client about this position but he did not produce any such affidavit before him. No advantage, therefore, can be given to the petitioner about the contents of the affidavit said to have been filed by the complainant, at this stage by way of interpretation of the affidavit. Of course, this might be useful for the petitioner at the trial when the complainant appears for cross-examination.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the witnesses other than the complainant have by way of sworn affidavits, exonerated Ismail co-accused of the petitioner, named in the F.I.R. does not advance the case of the petitioner.

6. Although the petitioner was not put to identification parade, but in view of the statement made by witnesses named in the FIR during their first appearance before the Police, the holding o identification parade had not remained a must. In the circumstances, I feel that no case for bail is made out at this stage dismissed. S. G. D./S-72/L Petition dismissed.