This is an application for cancellation of bail in a case of murder pending against Abdur Razzaq respondent.
2. This application has arisen from the facts which are briefly stated as follows. On 11-7-1988 at 2300 hours Mst. Fouzia, complainant, lodged a report to S.H.O. Cantt. D.I. Khan in her own Bungalow situated near Chah Phhool Wala 2/3 furlongs away from Police Station Cantt. Wherein she alleged that she alongwith her husband Syed Agha Abbas All Shah and two maid-servants Mst. Zaro and Naseem were watching the T.V. In their bed room. The door of the room was closed. At about 2230 hours two persons who had muffled the faces and were armed with pistol entered the room. One of them was of long stature while the other was of medium stature and looked like Derawal. Her husband Agha Abbas All Shah asked as to who were they; why had they entered the room and; what had they wanted? In the meantime the two aforesaid persons opened fire at her husband with which he was hit and fell dead. Both the assailants then went out of the room. On their way the assailants were encountered by Ghulam Sarwar, the servant of the deceased who had been attracted to the bungalow on hearing the report of fire shots. The two assailants fired at him who was hit and died on the spot. She was not aware of the motive of the offence.
3. Accused-respondent Abdur Razzaq was arrested soon after the occurrence. On 17-7-1988 an identification parade was held under the supervision of a Magistrate First Class of D.I. Khan wherein she could not identify the accused at the first instance. At the second instance she picked up the accused-respondent in the parade saying that the face of the respondent resembled with one of the assailants. Nonetheless after few moments she resiled from her suspicion saying that she was doubtful and she feared God lest any innocent person should be involved. On 21-7-1988 in another identification parade under the supervision of the same Magistrate, (wherein) Naseem Bibi (P.W.) correctly picked up the respondent.
4. Another category of evidence against the respondent is two foot prints taken from near the main gate of the bungalow of the deceased.
5. Pending conclusion of the investigation, the respondent made an application for his bail which was allowed to him vide order, dated 9-8-1988. A petition was filed in the Court of Sessions Judge for the cancellation of bail of the respondent which did not find favour with him and hence this petition.
6. Mr. Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Assistant Advocate-General, appearing on behalf of the State, contended that the bail has been granted to the respondent in total disregard of the principles of law and material available on record. According to him, the respondent had been correctly identified by the complainant and Mst. Naseem (P.W.) in the identification parade held under the supervision of a Magistrate. He also relied upon identification of the foot prints taken from within the bungalow which matched with the foot prints of the respondent. Furthermore, he contended that the occurrence was promptly reported to the police and that the medical evidence was in complete conformity with the report of the complainant. He further argued that in the background of the previous litigation between the respondent and his father on the one hand and the deceased on the other over the bungalow where the occurrence had taken place and the other landed property furnished a credible motive for the offence.
7. Mr. Sanaullah Khan Gandapur, learned counsel for the respondent has repelled these arguments of the learned Assistant Advocate-General. He maintained that the respondent had not been charged in the FIR.; that the assailants had been shown with muffled faces; that even according to the first informant the deceased did not even know them; that the assailants have not been fully described except for their stature. He also maintained that the only available evidence on the record is the identification of the respondent by Mst. Naseem (P.W.) which besides being the weakest type of evidence was even otherwise not worthy of credence. He also submitted that evidence of foot prints was not of much evidentiary value.
8. The occurrence took place in the night. The assailants had even according to the first informant muffled their faces. The evidence of identification parade was duly considered by the learned Sessions Judge. I do not find any reason to disagree with the order of the learned Sessions Judge who could not be A persuaded to cancel the to the respondent. The order of the learned Sessions Judge declining to cancel the bail of the respondent is based on sound reasoning.
9. For the foregoing reasons, I see no justification to cancel the bail. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. .