The petitioner is one of the accused persons of F.I.R: No.499, dated 31-7-1991 of Police Station Model Town of Lahore which F.I.R. Was registered' for the alleged commission of offences punishable under section 382, P.P.C. As also under section 17 of Ordinance VI of 1979.
2. Through this F.I.R., which had been recorded at the instance of one Masood Ahmad, who claimed to be the owner of a General Store in Model Town, it had been alleged that while he was closing his shop on 30-7-1991 at about 8-00 p.m., three boys entered the same and after whipping out their pistols commanded the complainant to hand over to them whatever valuables he had, under the threat of death.
3: It had been further alleged that the complainant opened the counter and made over the entire cash amounting to Rs.2,100 to the said three boys. It had been added that a fourth companion of these culprits was standing at the door of the store and was also armed with a pistol.
4. The complainant had given description of the culprits in the said F.I.R. Who had, according to him, decamped on the motorcycles after the said occurrence.
5. The S.H.O. Present in Court states that the' petitioner who is aged about 18/19 years was arrested alongwith three other companions in pursuance of F.I.R. No. 274/91 of Police Station North Cantt of District Lahore on 8-8-1991 when a case under section 399/400/402, P.P.C. Was registered against them and that it was during the course of interrogation in this case that the petitioner and his companions disclosed the commission of dacoity which is the subject-matter of the case in hand.
6. It is further submitted that after their arrest; all the four accused persons, including the present petitioner had been subjected to a test identification parade on 10-9-1991 which had been conducted in the premises, of Kot Lakhpat Jail under the supervision of Mr. Javed Iqbal Bokhari, a learned M.I.C., Model Town and during which proceedings, two eye-witnesses named in the F:I.R., namely, Riaz and Azmat had correctly identified all the four accused persons., including the present petitioner.
7. It is also submitted that Kabir petitioner had led to the recovery of Rs.400 in this case on 17-9- 1991.
8. The police officer adds that the petitioner and his above-mentioned co-accused -and companions are involved in about twenty cases of thefts dacoity and dacoity with murder, committed in Lahore and out of which, six pertained to Police Station Model Town. The F.I.R.
Numbers of these six cases of Police Station Model Town are 498/91, 472/91, 473/91, 418/91, 413/91 and the sixth is the present case.
9. On the strength of these facts, the learned Assistant Advocate --General had vehemently argued that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, contended that the alleged identification parade is of no consequence at all, since the petitioner had been shown to the alleged eye- witnesses before this identification parade had been conducted and further that the recovery of Rs.400 out of the looted money of the present case had been maliciously planted on the petitioner by the investigation officer.
11. The veracity and the value of the evidence emanating from the test identification parade can be determined only at the trial when the concerned A witnesses have entered the witness.6ox. Suffice it to say for the present, that the petitioner is one of the accused persons who had been correctly identified by the eye-witnesses during such proceedings.
12. Similarly, the fabrication of the recovery of Rs.400 above-noticed is also a question, which could be resolved only during the proceedings before the ,learned trial Court.
13. Nothing has been alleged which could have demonstrated any malice, illwill or motive either on the part of the local police or on the part of the g complainant or any one else for that matter which could have prompted them to falsely and maliciously involve the present petitioner in such a large number of cases, including the present case.
14. In view of what has been noticed above, I do not find any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.
15. But before I part with this order, I must bring on record that I have noticed some lapses in the investigation of this case which have been knowledged by the Law Officer and the police officers present in Court. The police officers not only in this case but even in other cases, are warned of serious action in future, if any such lapse or misfeasance or malfeasance is noticed by the Court in the matters of investigation.
N.H.O./K-24/L