2010 PLP 1040 (MLD)

SALMAN ANSARI, J.

This bail application has been moved by the applicant/accused Suleman who is facing trial for having committed an offence under section 397/34, P.P.C. within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kharadar, in which the F.I.R. was lodged on 6-10-2004 and the incident is of the same date at 1800 hours, the complainant Muhammad Rafique is the owner of Younus Bakery where a dacoity was committed and on the resistance of his employee Sher Zaman who used to work at Iqra Bakery, he was shot dead by the 2/3 armed dacoits who managed to escape after committing the murder of the deceased. The applicant/accused and on the same day while trying to escape in an encounter killed two policemen who tried to apprehend the culprits. Two F.I.Rs. were lodged one being the present F.I.R. No. 184 of 2004 in which the accused is being tried in Sessions Case No.757 of 2004 State v. Ali Muhammad and others and the second F.I.R. No.264 of 2004 registered under sections 302/353/324/34, P.P.C. of Police Station Bhagdadi. Learned counsel for the applicant/accursed had argued that it is an unseen incident in which, in his evidence the complainant had not seen any person nor identified any accused. In the case under section 302, P.P.C., applicant/accused has been granted bail by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge (South-West) Karachi, nothing has been recovered from the accused and the case would require further inquiry. The learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the bail application as the accused are very dangerous criminals who have committed the offence having been caught in which encounter two policemen were shot dead by the accused hence the applicant/accused is not entitled to the grant of bail. Taking into consideration the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused and the learned State Counsel. In this case, it is a fact that no person had witnessed the incident of shooting dead Sher Zaman, employee of Iqra Bakery but soon after the incident in an encounter with the police who had chased the accused and his accomplices after hearing commotions raised by the public shouting `dacoit', `dacoit', in which two policemen were shot dead, but in that case the learned trial Court had deemed it just and proper to release the applicant/accused on bail. That in the present case the accused after having committed the offence were chased and subsequently an encounter with the Police had taken place it would be necessary that the witnesses who had identified the applicant/accused and those Police Officers who had taken part in the encounter and were present in the subsequent incident in both these incident three persons have been shot dead allegedly by the accused and his accomplice. I find that it would be necessary to examine the witnesses who had taken part in the encounter and the P.Ws. before whom the applicant/accused were put to identification parade as both the incident being so interconnected that above P.Ws. should be examined by the trial Court before bail in this matter is to be considered. Hence trial Court is directed to examine, within one month, the witnesses who had witnessed the incident of encounter and before whom the applicant/accused were put to identification. Further the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within 4 months of the receipt of this order. This bail application is, therefore, rejected for the reasons as given above. Ordered accordingly. H.B.T./S-37/K Bail refused.