' MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, J.---This Criminal Bail Application has been filed against the order of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Malir Karachi, dated 31-7-2009, passed in Bail Application No,425 of 2009, which had been filed in respect of the F.I.R. No,194 of 2009, registered with the police station Steel Town under section 392/34, P.P.C, whereby the applicant's application for grant of bail was rejected.
2. Brief facts of case according to the F.I.R. Are that complainant namely Inamullah Sheikh son of Abdul Razzak had reported that when he visited the house of Muhammad Aslam Sheikh on his call and after dinner was taken with his host, his wife called him and he went outside to talk to her on mobile, meanwhile two unknown armed accused persons, on the force of weapons snatched his mobile phone Nokia 1650, one Golden chain, his wallet containing Rs,25800 and the Identity cards of his and his wife and fled away on the motorcycle. He then went to lodge the report with the police station on the next morning. Later on he was informed that at night Steel Town Police after an encounter had captured one accused person and on that information he along with a friend visited the police station Steel Town and saw the applicant/accused in the lockup, he recognized him as the same person, who committed robbery from him and therefore, he prayed for action against the culprit and the F.I.R. Was lodged. The applicant who was already in custody was also arrested in the present case on the basis of this F.I.R. The Bail Application on his behalf was moved before the learned trial Court, which was dismissed vide the impugned order. Hence this bail application.
3. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Nawaz learned counsel for the applicant/ accused and Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan learned A.P.G.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant accused submitted that a political enmity is existing between the two groups in Gulshan-e-Hadeed area and the F.I.R. Has been lodged only on the basis of this enmity. In this connection he drew my attention to the F.I.R. No,246 of 2008 registered at such police station and he submitted that the complainant also belongs to the same party as the accused in this F.I.R. And therefore, this F.I.R. Has been lodged in retaliation of that F.I.R. He further submitted that the applicant had been arrested in another F.I.R. No, 169 of 2009 and during his arrest the complainant was brought to the police lockup and was shown the applicant/accused and allegedly identified him as one of the persons who had snatched various things from the complainant on the force of arms. He further drew my attention to the charge sheet in which it has been stated that property allegedly snatched has not been recovered. He further submitted that no identification parade had been held and without an identification parade made in accordance with the provisions of law the identification made by the police in the police lockup cannot be relied upon. He submitted that the case was one of the further inquiry and at this stage the applicant was entitled to bail.
5. The learned A.P.G. Has strongly opposed the grant of bail and submitted that the identification by the complainant is enough to make out a prima facie case against the applicant/accused and no further inquiry is needed in this case.
6. I have examined the case and have perused the record of the case including the F.I.R, the charge sheet and the impugned order.
7. On a perusal of the impugned order I have seen that the learned trial Court has distorted the facts of the case as according to the F.I.R. The crime had taken place outside the house of Muhammad Aslam Sheikh, a friend of the complainant, whereas the trial Court had noted that the incident had taken place inside the house of the complainant and therefore according to him naturally the other inmates of the house had witnessed the same. According to the learned trial Court the police had collected sufficient material to prima facie connect the applicant/accused with the commission of the crime but he has not pointed out as to what sufficient material has been collected by the police except the identification by the complainant, which also is not according to law. From a tentative assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that there is no material available with the prosecution to connect the applicant/accused with the commission of this crime as it has been pointed out to me that the applicant had been shown to the complainant without conducing an identification parade in accordance with law and, therefore, such identification cannot be relied upon and there are a number of judgments of the superior Courts on this point.
8. I am of the considered opinion that even if the illegality of the identification process was the only point available to the applicant/accused it was enough to make him entitled for bail and I am also of the opinion that further inquiry in accordance with law is needed to connect the applicant/accused with the crime and therefore, it is my considered opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
9. The above are the reasons for which I had by my short order delivered in Court after hearing the learned counsel on 7-10-2009 admitted the applicant/accused to bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,200,000 along with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
10. The applicant is directed to cooperate with the trial Court and attend the proceedings before the trial Court failing which this concessions of bail may be withdraw.
11. This criminal bail application is disposed of in the above manner.