Briefly stated the facts of this case are that on 26-4-1986, at about morning time, Faqir Mohammad, Mohammad Akram, Sher and Ashfaq were proceeding to Sessions Court in a wagon to attend hearing of a case. When the wagon reached Octroi Post, Multan Road, two cars came in front of the same and stopped the wagon. Zafar alias Zafri, Sheedi, Dilawar, Ashiq, Zulfiqar, Bara and 3/4 others came out of the car. They were armed with fire-arms. They started indiscriminate and reckless firing on the complainant party. Faqir Mohammad, Mohammad Akram and Slier were injured on account of that firing. They died at the spot. Ashfaq, driver of the wagon and its cleaner were also injured. Malik Pir Mohammad complainant was informed of this occurrence by Naseer P.W. Who had witnessed the occurrence besides Manzoor, Niamat, Hakam and Amjad. The motive was stated to be previous murder enmity between the parties. The petitioner and his co-accused were arrested. This is a petition for bail only on behalf of Arif Ali.
2. In support of this petition, it is contended that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R.; that the witnesses were not made to identify the petitioner in any test identification parade; that the petitioner was arrested on 4-10-1986 but the trial has not so far completed; that the petitioner did not have a direct motive to join hands with his co-accused; and that his co---accused Sarwar, Mst. Barkat Bibi and Mst. Bushra Bibi were admitted to bail by the lower Court. Their case was identical to that of the petitioner. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner be allowed bail. This petition has been opposed on behalf of the State.
3. I have considered the above contentions and have also minutely gone through the police file of this case. The occurrence took place on 26- 4- 1986. The F.I.R. Was recorded on the same day, at about 4-00 p.m. At the instance of Malik Pir Mohammad who was himself not an eye-witness. In view of the fact that the complainant was not an eye-witness of the occurrence, the omission of the name of the petitioner from the F.I.R. Prima facie does not affect the merits of the case. Malik Pir Mohammad complainant on 26-4-1986 made a supplementary statement before the Investigating Officer and named Arif Ali as one of the accused in the case. Manzoor Ahmad, Nemat and Khalid P.Ws. Who had witnessed the occurrence, named Arif Ali accused as one of the assailants of the three deceased and two injured witnesses. A .12 bore gun was also recovered at the instance of Arif Ali accused during investigation. It is correct that the witnesses were not made to join any test identification parade for identification of Arif Ali petitioner but as stated above, firstly, Malik Pir Mohammad complainant was himself not an eye-witness land secondly, Manzoor Ahmad etc. Eye-witnesses knew Arif Ali accused before the occurrence and they named him in their statements during investigation. There was, therefore, no apparent reason for holding a test identification parade. The accused was arrested on 4-10-1986. The challan has already been filed in Court and the trial is likely to be completed within two years period. It is also correct that Mst.
Barkat Bibi, Mst. Bushra Bibi and Sarwar accused were allowed bail by the lower Court but on perusal of the record I find that their case was not identical to that of the present petitioner. Mst.
Barkat Bibi and Mst. Bushra Bibi were allowed bail because they were women and secondly, because they had not fired at the deceased persons or the injured eye-witnesses. Sarwar was allowed bail because he was not present at the spot at the time of occurrence and secondly, because the only allegation against him was that he had conspired the commission of present crime.
4. In view of the above discussion, I find no merits in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.
The learned trial Judge will decide the case and come to his own conclusion after recording evidence uninfluenced by any observations in this order which are only for decision of this petition.