2006 PLP 2511 (YLR)

IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.

Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.412 of 2004, dated 8-11-2004, registered under sections 302 and 393/34, P.P.C., at Police Station, Batapur Lahore on the statement of Abdul Hameed, the complainant.

2. The brief facts as alleged in the F.I.R. are that Muhammad Sajid, son of the complainant was employee in the Muslim Commercial Bank, Jail Road Branch, Lahore. On 8-11-2004, when he did not return to home at 5-30 p.m., the complainant made a call on his mobile but instead of his son the Police replied the complainant that his son was murdered due to firing by any one. On hearing this complainant along with Tariq Mehmood and Arshed Sohail rushed to Jallo Park, Lahore, where he came to know that Sajid deceased along with Ms. Nazia had gone to Jallo Park for visit on a Suzuki Car bearing Registration No.LRP-89 on the same day at about 4-45 p.m. and both of them were sitting in the said car by opening its glasses. In the mean time two unknown persons came near their car. One of the said persons had fired with his pistol upon Muhammad Sajid, deceased, who succumbed to the injuries at the spot.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was arrested on 31-12-2004 and he was sent to judicial lock-up on 7-1-2005; that subsequently, the identification parade was conducted in the present case and an objection was raised by the petitioner and co-accused before the learned Magistrate that they were shown to the witnesses and their photographs were also taken by the police at Police Station, that the case was registered vide F.I.R. No.218 under sections 399/402, P.P.C. on 30-3-2005 at Police Station, Harbanspura, Lahore, out of which three accused were arrested; that during the investigation of said case, one of the accused namely Muhammad Tariq son of Latif had disclosed that about 3 months ago in the month of Ramzan-ul-Mubarik, he along with Hafiz Shahid had fired when he was sitting in a car with a woman and a Rapt was also entered at police station in this regard; that the case of the present petitioner is doubtful and according to the version of the prosecution, he was driving a motor-cycle, who had not fired at the deceased.

4. The learned State counsel has opposed this bail petition on the ground that the petitioner has been identified by said Ms. Nazia, who was accompanying the deceased at the time of incident and that witnesses were not cross-examined by the learned counsel for the petitioner and delay in disposal of case is attributed to the petitioner that the petitioner had committed heinous offence and he is not entitled to the grant of bail.

5. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with due care and caution.

6. It has become a tendency that in each and every case at the time of identification parade, an objection is raised by the accused that they were shown to the witnesses at police station, but this objection alone is not sufficient to discard the said proceedings unless is substantiated by some material. In the present case, the petitioner has been identified as one of the accused, who had participated in the occurrence by the eye-witness namely Ms. Nazia who was accompanying the deceased at the time of incident at Jallo Park. On the other hand, the trial of the case had already commenced and as per order dated 22-11-2006 passed by the learned trial Court, the case was fixed for recording of evidence and three witnesses were present, but the learned defence counsel did not opt to cross-examine them and requested for a adjournment. In such circumstances, the delay is not attributed to the prosecution but the same is attributed to the petitioner accused and his counsel, because in spite of presence of witnesses, the learned defence counsel was not ready to cross-examine them and their evidence could not be recorded. The contention of the learned counsel that investigation has not been conducted properly and true facts were not brought on record by the police as during the investigation one Tariq had disclosed that he along with Hafiz Shahid had fired at the deceased, which will be seen by the learned trial Court after recording of evidence and at this stage, deeper merits of the case cannot be looked into. The case falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section of 497, Cr.P.C. and no ground is made out for the grant of bail at this stage. ????????? Consequently, this bail petition stands dismissed. However, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within 6 months after receipt of this order. H.B.T./M-347/L????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.