1. ' MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J.---As per F.I.R. No,62 of 2005 registered under sections 302, 324, 148 and 149, P.P.C. 18 persons, out of them 6 were unidentified, took upon the complainant and hisassociates and killed 3 persons namely Eidan, Masti and Nihal while injuring Saindad.
2. ' Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not been named in the F.I.R. And at the most he could be one of the unidentified persons who had veiled on his face and that any of the unidentified persons has not been assigned any role although their participation has been alleged. He further submits that the applicant was arrested after 13 days and was put to identification parade and was identified but in the identification parade question in respect to role of the accused was not asked from the person identifying the accused. He further submits that it was not possible for the witnesses to identify the accused as according to the allegation he had veiled on his face therefore, identification is very much doubted but since the accused was known to the complainant party and one of the relatives to the accused party therefore, he has been picked up by all the three witnesses. Learned counsel has relied upon the case of Zahid and others v. State, 1998, PCr.LJ 45 to the point that when no role was assigned to the accused by the witness identifying him then the case fall within thecategory of further inquiry. He has also relied upon the case of Abdul Karim alias Baboo and another v. The State 2006 SCM R 813 on the point that absences of the name of the accused in the F.I.R. Makes the case of further inquiry.
3. ' Learned State counsel has no objection to the grant of bail by stating that the simple reliance on the identification parade cannot be given much weight at the stage of bail as there is neither any alleged participation of the accused nor his identity was known at the time of incident.
4. ' Although 3 persons have been murdered and one has seriously been injured but apparently there were 6 persons who had muffled their faces and were not known to the complainant party therefore, their identification at the later stage cannot be taken conclusively in the absence of corroboratoryevidence. It is not justified by the identifying witnesses as to from which sign or symptom they have identified the accused while according to them he had covered his face at the time of incident. This deeper aspect of the evidence is to be scrutinized after recording evidence. It has also come on record that the applicant has not participated in the firing and no allegation has been attributed against him on eve of firing on the complainant party. In these circumstances, the case of the applicant is of further inquiry to prove his guilt. In these circumstances, the applicant is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,200,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.