Petitioners Muhammad Ashfaque alias Shafaat Ali and Fayyaz Ahmad seek bail in a case registered against them and some others for offences under section 148/302/307/149; P.P.C. With Police Station Rail Bazar, Faisalabad, vide F.I.R. Dated 6-9-1989. According to the F.I.R., the first informant, a motor-cycle dealer, had a shop on Circular Road. While he was going to the shop of one Shehzad Masood on 6-9-1989 at 10 a.m., a motor-cycle being driven by one Pervaiz co- accused of the petitioners hit the first informant, whereupon they grappled with each other. In the meanwhile, Shehzad Masood and Tahir Javed also came there and gave fist blows to Ijaz Akbar and Pervaiz, whereupon they went away while threatening. On the same day at about 1-30 p.m., when the first informant was sitting with Shehzad Masood, Tahir Javed and Latif Tariq, a suzuki van came in front of their shop. The said suzuki van was being driven by Fayyaz Ahmad, petitioner No.2.
From the said suzuki van, Ijaz Akbar and Pervaiz `Kamoka, armed with .1.2 bore guns, got down from the front seat, whereas nine other persons also armed with guns who were sitting in the rear of the van, also got down. It was contained in the F.I.R. That he could not identify those nine persons, however, if brought in front of him he could identify them. The co---accused of the petitioners are alleged to have fired hitting Tahir Javed with the result of which he died later. The other nine co- accused are alleged to have fired in the air.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that Muhammad Ashfaque petitioner was neither named in the F.I.R. Nor had been attributed any specific role. Argued that no identification parade was ever held and, in such circumstances, his involvement in the instant case is not free from doubt. Argued that as far as Fayyaz Ahmad petitioner is concerned, the suzuki van did not belong to him and it is yet to be ascertained whether he shared the common intention or not. The contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the record. It is admitted that petitioner No.1 Muhammad Ashfaque was not named in the F.I.R. Nor he has been alleged any overt act. In the absence of any identification parade, the case of Muhammad Ashfaque petitioner No.1 does become of further inquiry. As far as Fayyaz Ahmad petitioner No.2 is concerned, his case stands on a different footing. He was named in the F.I.R. He was driving the--suzuki van on which the assailants came and after the commission of the offence, all of them went away-in the same suzuki van. In these circumstances, no case for bail as far as Fayyaz Ahmad, petitioner No.2 is concerned, is made out. Resultantly, his petition fails which is, accordingly, dismissed.
Muhammad Ashfaque, petitioner No.1, for the reasons stated above, is allowed bail provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate concerned.