' ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.---Shah Alam Khan, accused/petitioner has filed this application for his release on bail in case F.I.R. No, 177 dated 9-5-2010 under sections 302/34, P.P.C. Of Police Station Cantt: Bannu. Earlier, he has failed to get the said concession from the Courts below vide orders dated 26-8-2010 and 6-9-2010 respectively.
2. According to the report of the complainant Palak Naz alias Falak Naz, on 9-5-2010 at 0700 hours he along with his brother named Chappal Khan and another Kamal Khan were going towards the Contractor Naqeebullah Khan in a datsun pick-up. When reached Adda Surangi, a person climbed the roof of the datsun and sat down near Chappal Khan and on covering some distance at 0730 hours, the person sitting near Chappal Khan fired at him with .30 bore pistol with which he was hit and fell down to the ground. When the driver stopped the datsun, another person armed with pistol emerged from the motorcar standing nearby who too fired at Chappal Khan with which he was also injured, whereafter both the accused decamped from the spot in the same motorcar. When he (the complainant) came his brother Chappal Khan, he took his last breath and expired. The complainant did not know the names of the accused but stated that he could identify them with whom they had blood feud enmity.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Shah Alam petitioner is not named in the F.1.R and later on the second day of registration of case, supplementary statement under section 161, Cr.P.C.
Was recorded wherein the accused/petitioner was charged. According to the learned counsel, no identification parade has been conducted, therefore, the nomination of the petitioner in the offence is not justified.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant and State argued that there is ample evidence against the accused. The medical evidence supports the accusation against the accused/petitioner.
According to them, since the accused were not known to the complainant previously, therefore, they were not charged by name.
5. I have gone through the record carefully and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. It is true that in the F.I.R no body is charged by name. According to the complainant he could identify the accused from faces.
7. The F.I.R. Reveals that the complainant has alleged previous enmity with the accused. If this narration in the F.I.R is admitted, then question arises as to why they were not named there. On the second day of the occurrence, the accused were named in the supplementary statement by the complainant. After arrest of the accused/petitioner, no identification parade has been conducted enabling the complainant to identify the accused. This fact has created doubt at the moment unless evidence is recorded by the trial Court. The previous enmity was mentioned by the complainant in the F.I.R. Question arises as to why he did not name them in the F.I.R. This has also made the case of the petitioner arguable for the purposes of bail.
8. This Court in Bail Petition No, 324 of 2010 decided on 23-8-2010 has held that there is no provision in the Cr.P.C. About the supplementary statement which is always recorded in order to fill up lacunae in the prosecution case. In that case bail was granted to the accused.
9. In another similar case bearing Bail Application No, 349 of 2010 decided on 10-8-2010, this Court has granted bail to the accused.
10. In the case reported as 2009 MLD 472 involving similar circumstances where the accused were not named in the F.I.R but were subsequently charged in the supplementary statement by the complainant in his statement recorded under section 161; Cr.P.C. The accused were admitted to bail.
11. In short, the accused/petitioner was not charged by name in the F.I.R. And he was nominated on the second day of the occurrence in the supplementary statement of the complainant in spite of the fact that previous enmity was alleged by him against the accused, no identification parade was held and while placing reliance on the above case-law coupled with the orders of this Court mentioned above, I accept this application and admit the petitioner to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of rupees two lacs with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Ilaqa/Judicial Magistrate, who shall ensure that the sureties are local residents of Tehsil Bannu, reliable and men of means. However, the above observations-are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the mind of the trial Court at the time of trial.