1998 P Cr (PLP)

Syed Mahmood Alam Rizvi for Applicant. Habib Ahmad, A.A.‑G. for the State. The F.I.R. in this case was registered on 14‑1‑1996 for offences under sections 148, 108, 114, 364, 342 and 302 Qisas and Diyat Ordinance and 17(3) Haraba Ordinance. Complainant Muhammad Zahid has stated in the F.I.R. that at about 2‑390 a.m. 5/6 persons duly armed with K.Ks. came to the upper floor and awoke his brother Pervaiz. They took his brother and came down stairs. He also saw that 14/15 persons duly armed with K.Ks. were standing in the Gali and they stated that they were rangers and had encircled the whole Muhalla. they asked about Khalid and Hameed and complainant informed them that they were on duty and they had no arms. All the family members were collected at one place and rooms were searched. Complainant was taken in a white hi‑roof and on the way a band was wrapped around his eyes. They reached house of Sharfuddin and pulled him out. Father of Sharfuddin requests them that he had only one son and he should not be taken away, but the accused replied that they cannot spare any policeman. The mother of Sharfuddin also requests them. Accused also wrapped band on his eyes. At that time a police vehicle was seen coming and the complainant managed to escape. He took refuge on roof of a Mazda, from where hg saw that the terrorists had taken Sharfuddin and went towards route of W‑18 of Sarjani Town. Complainant has further stated that he was sure that they were terrorists of Altaf Group namely

1. Naeem Shiri,

2. Shabir Nai,

3. Naveed,

4. Imtiaz guard,

5. Nadeem Bhoora,

6. Zahid,

7. Ashraf Ali,

8. Aamir Siddiqui, 9: Qamar Ghalib,

10. Nadeem Dekait,

11. Shabir,

12. Shoukat, 13 Noora,

14. Shahbaz,

15. Aslam, some other companions and one boy aged 15/16 years of fair colour also with the accused persons. Subsequently Sharfuddin was murdered. Out of the 16 accused only one who is the present applicant has been arrested. Out of the above-named persons Shabir Nai and Nadeem Bhoora are stated to have died in police encounter. Learned Advocate for applicant has requested for bail on the ground that after his arrest he was not subjected to identification test. There is no recovery of any weapon from him in this case. Learned A.A.‑G. opposes the grant of bail as his name appears in the F.I.R. but he concedes that there has been no identification test. He also concedes that eye‑witnesses have not named the applicant. The F.I.R. was registered on 14‑1‑1996. Applicant was arrested on 29‑2‑1996 and he was arrested in this case on 10‑3‑1996. Learned Advocate for applicant submits that he is Sector In-charge and therefore, known to the residents of the area, but the other witnesses have not named him. The only piece of evidence against him is that he is named in the F.I.R. by complainant. Learned Advocate for applicant submits that there are two parts of offence. On point of abduction there is evidence of complainant but as regards murder of Sharfuddin there is no evidence. The other witnesses have not named the applicant and he was not subjected to identification test after his arrest: There is no recovery of any weapon from him. Keeping in view these circumstances together it becomes a case where further inquiry is required. I, therefore, grant bail to applicant subject to furnishing of two sureties in the sum of Rs.1,50,000 (one lac fifty thousand) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. N.H.Q./A‑135/K Bail allowed.