2002 MLD 7 (PLP)

Fazalur Rehman for the State. Date of hearing: 13th August, 2001. Applicant Ghulam Rasool has been booked alongwith co accused Muhammad Arshad for an offence punishable under section 302/34, P.P.C. The bail application of co-accused Muhammad Arshad was dismissed by this Court but bail has been sought by the present applicant on the ground that his case is distinguishable and his guilt requires further enquiry.

2. F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by Pervez Khan, father of deceased Imran. He stated in the F.I.R. that on 16-11-2000 at 10-00 p.m. he was present in his house when he was informed that somebody had fired at his son Imran who has been removed to Civil Hospital. The complainant rushed to Civil Hospital where he found his son lying dead having bullet injury on his chest. He came to know through Bhakhtiar, his son-in-law, that at Dhobipara in the street some unknown persons for some animosity fired at Imran. Co-accused was arrested on 22-11-2000 and later on statements of two persons Khalid and Zeshan were recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. out of whom Zeshan directly implicated the co-accused. Identification test parade was also conducted in which both the eye-witnesses identified the co-accused. The applicant was arrested on 14-3-2001 when the case was already challaned in Court on 4-12-2000, but admittedly no identification test parade was held.

3. Learned counsel for applicant contended that this is a blind F.I.R. and, in particular, the name of present applicant is not mentioned herein. There is no recovery from the applicant and no identification test parade has been held to establish his identity. Besides, in the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. eye-witness Zeshan had named the present applicant but in subsequent statement, recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. he did. not name the applicant. In the alternative he took the plea that at the most the allegation against the applicant is that he got hold of the deceased by collar of his shirt but the fatal shot is not attributed to him.

4. Learned State Counsel did not oppose the bail as in his view the case of applicant requires further enquiry.

5. In the circumstances enumerated above, indeed, the case of applicant; is distinguishable as his name is not mentioned in the F.I. R. and he has also not been nominated in statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. of the eye-witness and there is no identification test parade or other evidence relating to his identity. There is even no evidence of recovery of any incriminating substance from him. No doubt in the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. the eye-witness Zeeshan nominated the applicant to be the person who got hold of the deceased by collar of his shirt but subsequently in his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. the same witness completely kept silence about the name of present applicant and simply stated that co-accused Arshad Cheetah was known to him.

6. In the circumstances the identity of present applicant requires further enquiry, and the State Counsel has also no objection to grant of B bail as such the bail application is allowed. The applicant be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.3,00,000 and executing P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. N.H.Q./G-78/K Bail allowed.