Petitioner seeks bail in case F.I.R. No. 226/84, registered at Police Station Chunian, on 20-10-1984, under section 302/109, P.P.C. And under section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. The F.I.R. Was lodged by Muhammad Hayat. According to the complainant he alongwith his children was sleeping in the courtyard of his house on 1R-10-1984. At 11 p.m., 'he were up hearing the cries of his were Mst. Jiwan Bibi, 'thief" 'thief'. He saw three persons standing near his cot and one in the courtyard near the tree. One of them started giving blows with Danda to his were. They were asking her about ornaments. On his intervention one of the person standing near his cot gave him a Danda blow. The other two also gave him blows. The culprits entered the residential room and started searching. Two companions of the accused standing At side the house started firing. In the meantime, Ahmad Ding his neighbour, fired in the air, raising Lalkaras. The other neighbour Qutab Din gave him a call that he was coming. When Qutab Din opened the door, one of the companions of the culprits, fired a shot at him as a result of which he fell down and died at the spot. The accused, thereafter ran away. On search, complainant found that ornaments, clothes, beds and a licensed gun had been stolen. (Details of the stolen ornaments and clothes have been given in the F.I.R.).
It has also been stated in the F.I. R. By the complainant that all the culprits were speaking Punjabi and that he, his were, P.Ws. Umar Din and Ahamd Din will be able, to identify them if they appear before them. While giving identification marks of three of the culprits, he stated that Umar Din and Ahmad Din will be able to identify the culprits standing outside the house. He also gave the identification marks of the person who had fired the fatal short at Qutab Din.
8. Petitioner alongwith nine others persons were arrested during investigation. Petitioner on arrest was sent to jail for identification parade. He was identified by Muhammad Hayat, complainant, Mst.
Jiwan Bibi, his were, Ahmad Din and Umar Din. All of them while identifying stated that he had committed the dacoity in the house of the complainant.
A gun was recovered at his pointing out, which was found wedded with the empties found at the spot, vide the report of the Expert. Some ornaments were also recovered at his pointing out. He is also alleged to have made an extra-judicial confession before Muhammad Ashiq and Ghulam Muhammad.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been involved falsely in this case, that according to the prosecution extra-judicial confession was alleged to have been made by the petitioner alongwith three others, which means that it was a joint extra-judicial confession, and as such possesses no evidentiary value. According to him, the persons before whom the said extra-judicial confession was made, were residents of a village at a distance of 40 miles from the place of occurrence. About the recovery of gun and ornaments, learned counsel contended that the same have been planted. With regard to the identification parade, learned counsel argued, that the same, possesses no evidentiary value as none of the P.Ws. Stated as to what part was played by the petitioner. Learned counsel vehemently argued that it is stated in the F.I.R. That four persons were seen in the courtyard, but ten persons have been arrested in the case including the petitioner. Learned counsel laid much stress on the fact that no allegation has been made against the petitioner of having caused the death of Qutab Din of having given injuries to Hayat or Mst.
Jiwan Bibi. Learned counsel stated that two persons have already been granted bail. Lastly, learned counsel contended that the petitioner is in jail for the last about 14 months, but trial has not started yet.
4. Learned counsel for the State/ Complainant has opposed the grant of bail. Both of them contended that the petitioner is connected with the crime. They laid much stress on the fact of the petitioner having been identified by the P.Ws. During the identification parade and of the gun and ornaments having been recovered at his stance and that of the recovered gun having been found wedded with the empties recovered from the spot.
5. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Even if some weight is given to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that extra-judicial confession made by the petitioner was a weak type of evidence, particularly, for the reason that it was said to have been made jointly, the fact remains that the petitioner was identified, in the identification parade, by four of the witness, two of whom had suffered injuries during the occurrence and the gun recovered at his instance was found to have been used in the occurrence. A part of the decoyed ornaments has also been recovered from the petitioner. The contention A of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the gun and the ornaments have been planted by the police, cannot be given much weight at this stage, as the same will be thrashed out, after recording of the evidence of recovery witnesses. The important fact in this case, is that n: enmity with the complainant or the witnesses has been alleged by the petitioner. Had the complainant intended to involve the petitioner falsely, he could have named him in the F.I.R. The circumstantial evidence collected during investigation leave no ground to consider that the petitioner may not have committed the offence. As such, reasonable grounds do not appear, of his, not having committed the offence.
6. There is no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed.