Through this application under Section 497, Cr.P.C. Amir Ali (petitioner) seeks post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No. 28-2005,'dated 221-2005, registered under Sections 302/34, P.P.C. at Police Station, Sadar, Wazirabad, District Gujranwala on the statement of Shafqat Rasool, the complainant.
2. The brief facts as alleged in the F.I.R. are that on 22-5-2005 at about 11:30 a.m. an unknown person came at Adda Kot Khizri, a Bus Stop, while armed with pistol and fired on Amjad Rasool, brother of the complainant, who was also standing there. Amjad Rasool succumbed to the injuries at the spot and the accused fled away from the place of occurrence.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioners is not named in the F.I.R. and the petitioner has been involved in the present case subsequently on the disclosure of Sajjad Ahmad (co-accused), who has been granted bail by this Court vide order, dated 2212-2005 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8822-B of 2005 wherein it was observed that the witnesses could have not identified the accused, who had actively participated in the occurrence in spite of the fact that he is the resident of the same locality; that the identification parade was conducted with the delay of 7 days, which does not contain any description of the accused, who participated the occurrence and the F.I.R. is also devoid of such facts. Allegedly, the complainant has not identified the petitioner and other eye-witnesses also did not support the prosecution story. The identification parade without any basis is not strong piece of evidence; that during the police remand, nothing has been recovered from the petitioner; hence the case of the petitioner is of further inquiry.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this bail petition on the ground that the petitioner was arrested in F.I.R. 7542004 registered on 27-12-2004 at Police Station, Ferozwala, District Sheikhupura under Section 302, P.P.C. and then he was shifted to jail and fixed for proceedings of identification parade, which was not held because the petitioner was identified by two eye-witnesses; that he is involved in murder case previously; that the petitioner is desperate, hardened and criminal bent of mind and offence under Section 302, P.P.C. prima facie is made out against him and case falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The complainant had no enmity or grudge with the petitioner previously to falsely implicate him in the present case; that the petitioner is the resident of territorial jurisdiction of Police Station, Ferozwala; whereas occurrence had taken place at Wazirabad and the witnesses did not know whereabouts of the petitioner, who had correctly identified him.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for he parties and perused the record with due care and caution.
6. Though the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R., but the complainant has stated that he and eye-witness can identity the accused as who had seen him while making firing upon the deceased. It is also on record that the petitioner had actively participated in the occurrence in the presence of the complainant and he was arrested. The identification parade was conducted, but except the complainant, other eye-witnesses had identified the petitioner as one of the accused, which shows that the petitioner was not previously shown to the eye-witnesses. Otherwise, the complainant would have also identified the petitioner in jail. As far as contention of learned counsel for the petitioner about the evidentiary value of identification parade is concerned, deeper merits cannot be considered at this stage. The prosecution has collected sufficient evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence and prima facie, case falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., I find that case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the case of Sajjad Ahmad co-accused, who was the resident of place of occurrence and it was also observed by this Court while granting bail to him that eye-witnesses had not seen him at the place of occurrence, otherwise his name could have been mentioned in the F.I.R. The petitioner is not resident of the same locality. The petitioner was arrested in a murder case previously as well in which he was sent to jail. In the above circumstances, it is not a fit case for the grant of bail.
Consequently, this bail petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.