Petitioner Bilal Mohsin alias Kala son of Ahmad Hassan has filed this petition under Section 497 Cr.P.C. for post arrest bail in case FIR No, 1275/2009 dated 30.12.2009 under Sections 302, 324, 34, 397 PPC registered at Police Ration City, District Hafizabad.
2. According to the prosecution case, on 30.12.2009 at about 6.30 p.m. three unknown persons while armed with fire-arms weapons came at the place of occurrence. Out of three unknown persons two persons entered into the house whereas, one of them kept standing outside near the motorbike. It is also alleged in the FIR that one of those unknown persons who entered into the house pointed his weapon towards complainant party and asked all the persons to sit down, whereupon father of the Complainant/Respondent No, 2 namely Niaz Ahmad (deceased) immediately stood up, on which one of the accused fired a shot which hit on lower abdomen of father of the complainant and he fell down. Thereafter the other accused fired a shot which hit Amir (PW) on his right toe. The accused fled away from the spot while brandishing their weapons.
The complainant removed his father to the hospital but he succumbed to the injuries on the way.
On 31.12.2009 the complainant made a supplementary statement while nominating the petitioner along with his co-accused. It is alleged that the accused came there to commit the robbery and they made firing due to which his father Niaz Ahmad was murdered and Aamir received injuries.
Likewise, Aamir complainant also nominated the present petitioner along with co-accused Azhar.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is not nominated in the FIR and he was implicated through a supplementary statement. It is further contended that in the identification parade, although, the complainant and the witnesses had identified the petitioner as an accused in this case, but they did not attributed any role. It is also alleged that after the identification parade the supplementary statement of the injured and the complainant was recorded, according to which, fatal shot was attributed to Azhar co-accused. It is also contended that the identification parade was not recorded in accordance with the. High Court Rules and orders. It is also argued that the petitioner had not caused any injury to the deceased and he was involved by the complainant and the witnesses after the identification parade before the Police.
4. Learned DPG has vehemently opposed this petition by arguing that although the petitioner is not nominated in the FIR but the complainant nominated the petitioner on the information collected by him. It is further contended, that in this case the petitioner and co-accused Azhar were arrested on 14.1.2010 and they were sent to jail on the same day for the purpose of identification parade. On 18.1.2010 the identification parade was conducted under the supervision of the Magistrate where Shahzad Yousaf complainant and Kashif Niaz and the injured Aamir correctly identified the petitioner in the said identification. It is contended that the police while in league with the accused party had recorded the statement of the witnesses after identification parade while alleging that it was Azhar co-accused who cause fatal injury to the deceased and injured Amir PW. Lastly, it is contended that the trial has already commenced and the charge has already been framed.
5. Heard. Record perused. In the FIR and statements of the witnesses it is specifically mentioned that out of two unknown persons who entered into the house, one person fired a shot upon Shaikh Niaz and the other fired a shot upon Amir the injured person. Although the petitioner is nominated by the complainant in the supplementary statement which was recorded on the following day but the said information is not based upon any solid data and only the suspicion was shown against the petitioner on the information collected by the complainant.
6. In this case the petitioner was arrested along with his co-accused Azhar on 14.1.2010 and on the same day they were sent to the jail. On 18.1.2010 the identification parade was conducted under the supervision of the Magistrate and the complainant including the injured witnesses correctly identified the petitioner and his co-accused Azhar, as accused persons in this case. No doubt the said identification parade was joint one and also no role was given by the witnesses during the identification but this aspect cannot gone into while deciding the bail petition as it amount to deeper appreciation of the evidence and it is the trial Court who would decide the legality of the identification parade after recording the evidence but presently it is quite clear that the petitioner was identified during the identification parade duly supervised by a Magistrate. It is mentioned in the supplementary statement that accused persons came at the spot for committing robbery. Such type of crimes are increasing day by day in the society. The complainant party had no motive to falsely implicate the petitioner in this case as no ill will or enmity was pointed out by the petitioner. Petitioner along with his co-accused Azhar had committed the murder during the robbery and also caused injury to the PW Aamir who had identified the petitioner during the identification parade and the witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case. Challan has already been submitted in the Court, the offence against the petitioner falls under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr. P.C. The charge has also been framed.
Consequently, I am not inclined to allow this petition. Hence, the same is dismissed.
The observations-made above are tentative in nature and will have no effect upon the proceedings during the trial.