ORDER S. ALi HASSAN RIZVI, J. - The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 98, registered at Police Station Jinnah Road, Gujranwala on 28.3.2008 for offences under Sections 324/148/149, P.P.C.
2. Briefly, the story of the prosecution as stated in the F.I.R, is that the complainant is an Advocate who received a mobile call requesting for consultation in connection with filing a suit for pre- emption and again received a call from the same unknown accused that his office was not being located; that the complainant came at Sialkot Road to see them arid no sooner did he reach there, two unknown persons came there riding a motorcycle that one of them asked his name and the other hired two shots with pistol hitting on his right thigh and abdomen. The F.I.R, was lodged on 28.3.2008. The supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded, on '29.3.2008 disclosing therein that the offenders were the petitioner arid his co- accused Shoban. The motive stated in the supplementary statement was that the complainant was pursuing a civil suit against the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Shoban co-accused has been declared innocent; that supplementary statement is an after-thought; that according to the supplementary statement the petitioner was already known; the recovery of motorcycle is fake one as the motorcycle is registered in the name of father of the petitioner; that the injuries are on the non-vital part of the body of the complainant.
4. Of course, learned D.P.G, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposed all these grounds.
5. Heard. The investigator has found the petitioner as fully involved. According to the investigation, the motorcycle was without number plate at the time of occurrence. The recovery of pistol has also been effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is also involved in 4 other cases of similar nature i.e. (i) F.I.R. No. 200/08, Police Station Jinnah Road, Gujranwala under Sections 13/20/65 of Arms Ordinance, (li) F.I.R No. 289/08, Police Station Cantt., under Section 392, P.P.C., (iii) F.I.R. No. 39/94, Police Station Cantt., under Sections 302/34, P.P.C, and (iv) F.I.R. No. 358/04, Police Station Cantt.
Under Sections 436/379/337-H (ii)/148/149, P.P.C. Learned D.P.G, has also pointed out that in a murder case. As a juvenile he was. Convicted and sentenced for 10 year the prosecution has collected sufficient incriminating material against the petitioner. Prima facie, the act of the petitioner was a calculated attempt on the life of the complainant. He was attacked all of a sudden and was taken by surprise. The argument that the petitioner was known to the complainant and that, therefore, either he should have been named in the F.I.R, or in case of mistaken identity, identification parade was necessary, is totally a misconceived idea. The reason is that in the F.I.R, it was specifically noted that the present petitioner had claded him with a Chadar.. The fact that the complainant was opposite counsel against the present petitioner, does not mean that he knew him personally. The occurrence took place at 8.30 p.m. Or so. Identification parade is not a legal requirement, it is conducted only to provide a confirmatory link. However, where there is other evidence sufficient to connect an accused with the crime, identification . Parade may . Be .
Dispensed with. The complainant who is an Advocate1 identified him to be the same person who had injured him with repeated fire shots. Absence of his name in the F.I.R, would be immaterial when his person was certain. The injuries are on the vital part of body of the complainant. The offence under Section 324, P.P.C, falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Above all else, the petitioner is a previous convict and has a criminal history. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of bail. Dismissed.