OMAR SIAL, J.---The Applicant has sought his post arrest bail in crime number 169 of 2016 registered under section 302/34, P. P.0 .
1. The brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Saleem recorded a statement under section 154, Cr.P.C. that he lived with his brother Zulfiqar Ali and that both brothers were in the business of letting out a crane truck. On 22-2-2016 both the brothers were standing next to their truck on opposite sides. Two boys emerged on a motorcycle and caught hold of his brother by the collar.
Saleem asked the motor cyclists from the other side of the truck what the issue was upon which one of the two pulled out a pistol and fired at Saleem. According to Saleem, the bullet missed Saleem and hit his brother. His brother Zulfiqar subsequently died. The boys who the complainant thought were Sindhi because of their accents then left the scene. FIR No. 169/2016 was registered against the unknown assailants. Subsequently, on 9-3-2016 the present Applicant was arrested in crime number 218/2016 under section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013. During interrogation in that case, the Applicant confessed to having murdered Zulfiqar Ali. An identification parade was held on 16-3-2016 in which the complainant Saleem identified the Applicant as being one of the boys who had come on the motorcycle and killed his brother.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the Applicant, complainant and the State and have also scanned the record with their able assistance. My observations are as follows.
3. No description of the accused that had come on the motorcycle was given by the complainant in the FIR except that the accused appeared Sindhi from their accents. The Applicant is admittedly from the Hazarewal region. The statement of the complainant under section 161, Cr.P.C. records an improvement in that he states in his statement that the assailants were either Sindhi or Punjabi.
4. The positions of the brothers next to the truck and the account of the complainant on how the brother was hit by the bullet in itself is confusing and requires evidence to be led to be clarified.
5. It is a matter of record that the Applicant when arrested in the unlicensed weapons case on 9-3- 2016 was also booked the same day in too blind FIRs; one is the FIR from which this bail arises while the second is FIR No. 215/2016 under sections 392, 34, P.P.C. When the Investigating Officer was asked how he established the same day that it was the Applicant who was the same accused in the two other FIRS, he could not explain it and ultimately preferred to stay silent. The learned APG and was also unable to satisfy me on this count but reiterated that the complainant had also identified him in an identification parade in the present crime.
6. The only evidence (apart from the identification parade, which I will address in the next paragraph) appears to be at this stage an extra judicial confession by the Applicant.
7. As regards the identification parade, whether the complainant had earlier seen the Applicant requires to be addressed through evidence. I note that the day the identification parade was held, the Applicant had stated before the magistrate that the complainant had seen him in the police station. A true copy of the police diary of 9-3-2016 records that the complainant had been called to the police station to collect his section 160, Cr.P.C. notice in connection with the identification parade at the time when the Applicant was confined in the police station. The delay in holding the identification parade as well as whether the prescribed procedure was adopted by the magistrate in conducting the same are all issues that can only be decided after evidence is led. Prima facie it appears that in the present circumstances of the case, the identification parade itself alone cannot be the basis of denying the Applicant bail.
8. It appears that the Applicant's case falls within section 497(2), Cr.P.C. as one of further enquiry.
9. Above are the reasons for my short order of 30-3-2017 in, terms of which the Applicant was admitted to bail subject to him furnishing a solvent surety in the amount of Rs. 200,000 together with a P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court.