' SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, J.--Through this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C., Muhammad Imran petitioner has sought his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,147 of 2010 dated 17-11-2010 under sections 302, 392, 411 P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Noorpur, District Khushab.
2. According to the prosecution case mentioned in the F.I.R., the complainant heard report of fire- shot and proceeded towards the graveyard and saw his brother lying on the ground having a fire- shot on his back. The complainant arranged a private vehicle, but his brother died in the way to the hospital.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R.; that subsequently one Ghulam Rasool claimed to be eye-witness of the occurrence and according to him two unknown persons while committing robbery committed the murder of the deceased and also abducted him and subsequently released him; that the petitioner was arrested on 21-1-2011 and identification parade was conducted on 27-1-2011. Further contends that the identification parade was conducted with delay and Ghulam Rasool and other witness did not described the specific role while identifying the petitioner and co-accused. Aamer Hayat; that occurrence took place at night time and no source of light was explained by Ghulam Rasool; that fake recovery of Rs,1,000 was planted upon the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned DPP and learned counsel for the complainant opposed this petition while arguing that petitioner along with Aamer Hayat, committed robbery and during robbery committed murder of the deceased Safdar Hussain and they took away Ghulam Rasool along with them and subsequently left him near Jamali Balouchan; that when Ghulam Rasool told these facts to the complainant, he made supplementary statement on the same day and Ghulam Rasool categorically stated that he had seen both the robbers in the light of moon and he specified the description of both the assailants; that subsequently said Ghulam Rasool identified the petitioner during identification parade; that petitioner was arrested on 21-1-2011 and was sent to jail on the same day and was not kept in the Police Station; that trial is already in progress and the witnesses are appearing in the court. Lastly contends that the complainant had no motive to falsely implicate the petitioner in this case.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. The occurrence took place on 16-11,010 at about 8-00 p.m. And the complainant lodged F.I.R. On the same night at 12-10 night. Although, the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R., but on the same day Ghulam Rasool made statement under section 161, that at the time of occurrence two robbers committed robbery and when Safdar Hussain refused to hand-over cash to the robbers, one of the robbers fired upon Safdar Hussain and took out cash along with wallet and I.D. Card from A the pocket of Safdar Hussain. Ghulam Rasool further stated that both the robbers also made him to sit on the motorcycle and took him to a kacha path and left him near Jamali Balouchan. Ghulam Rasool in his statement specifically mentioned the description of both the robbers. It is also a circumstance that Muhammad Mumtaz and Tariq Iqbal P. Ws. Also made statement that they had seen both the robbers in the light of a tractor on the said Jamali road.
7. On 21-1-201-1 upon the information of an informer. Muhammad Imran petitioner and Aamer Hayat have been arrested. Both the accused persons were sent to judicial lock-up with covered faces on the same day and even they, were not taken to the Police Station for a minute. On 27-1- -2011 the Magistrate conducted the identification parade and Muhammad Mumtaz and Tariq Iqbal witnesses identified the petitioner B and his co-accused Aamer Hayat and stated before the Magistrate that they had seen the petitioner and his co-accused Aamer Hayat near Dera Balouchan in the light of tractor. Both the witnesses correctly identified them mixed up with the dummies. Ghulam Rasool, the alleged eve-witness of this occurrence also identified the petitioner and his co-accused and specifically stated before the Magistrate that petitioner along with his co- accused committed robbery with Safdar Hussain and with him. He also categorically stated that during robbery the petitioner and his co-accused killed Safdar Hussain and also took away cash and I.D. Card etc. He also stated before the Magistrate that petitioner along with his co-accused took him on a motorcycle and there-after dropped him at the road and went away. Although, the petitioner and his co-accused raised objection that they were shown to the witnesses in the Police Station and the identification was held after 6 days of the arrest of the petitioner, but the said aspect of the case cannot be appreciated while dealing with the bail application, as that would amount to deeper appreciation of the case.
' The prosecution case is supported by Ghulam Rasool eyewitness of the occurrence, who identified the petitioner and his co-accused during identification parade. The petitioner could not point out any enmity of Ghulam Rasool or complainant or other witnesses with him. The offences mentioned in the F.I.R. Are heinous and such like offences are increasing in the society and causing' insecurity in the mind of the public. There is sufficient evidence on the file against the petitioner and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner amount to deeper appreciation of the evidence, which cannot be appreciated while dealing with the bail application. The trial is already in progress and any observation at this stage by touching the merits of the case would prejudice the case of either party.
8. Consequently, due to the above mentioned reasons there is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby DISMISSED.
9. The observations made above are tentative in nature and were made only to decide the bail petition and will have no effect on any subsequent proceedings.
10. As the trial is already in progress, hence, the learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial, positively, within 4 months of the receipt of this order. In order to comply with this direction, the learned Trial Court can proceed with the trial on day-to-day basis.