Sarfraz alias Sarwar alongwith 2 others is accused of an offence under section 302/394, P.P.C. Read with Article 17 of the Offences Against Property (E.O.H.) Ordinance, 1979.
2. The prosecution case is that on 1-10-1990 Muhammad Ameer complainant and his nephew Raza Muhammad deceased were on their way to Chak Allah Abad Dakhli. A motor-cycle came from behind and stopped near them. They forcibly took away cash amount to Rs.4,000 from the pocket of the deceased and removed the wrist watch of Muhammad Ameer complainant. One of the accused also fired a revolver shot at Raza Muhammad when he called for help as a result he later died.
3. The petitioner and his companions were arrested. An identification parade was held in jail on 10- 2-1990. Muhammad Ameer complainant and 2 other witnesses correctly identified the petitioner.
4. Bali is sought on the grounds that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and that no recovery had taken place. The Wajtakar witnesses did not support the prosecution, it is maintained.
5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the bail application of the petitioner observed that although the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. But soon after the occurrence he was identified by the witnesses and during identification parade he was also correctly identified by them.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. There appears to be no reason for doubting the evidence of the P.Ws. At this stage because they A correctly picked up the petitioner in the identification parade. Accordingly, I do not consider the petitioner entitled to bail and dismiss his application.