ORDER ABDUL LATEEF QURESHI, J.- The applicant is involved in case registered as F.I.R. No. 190/94 P.S. Gulberg District Central Karachi.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution are that S.H.O. Pervez Akhtar lodged F.I.R, on I-5-1994 at II.30 P.M.
Stating therein that he alongwith A.S.I, and other staff were busy maintaining law and order situation as on that day as MQM Altaf Group has announced celebration of protest day. 30/40 MQM workers under Muhammad of one Shakir S/o Ahsan were committing riot and were firing in the air in Block Nos. 13 and 17 in Federal B' Area Karachi. They fired at Muhammad Akbar who succumbed to injuries. They set on fire some vehicles and damaged others. The police parts reached near water pump chowk Nadeem Arif, Farman and Shakir were identified bv the police as those from mob.
3. In the said case the police arrested number of persons and the case was sent up for trial before the Special Court. A bail application was moved on behalf of I6 accused before the trial Court. The order passed by Judge of the Special Court No. (STA) Karachi (East) shows that the bail was granted to five co-accused on the ground that their case is distinguishable from the case of the other accused and that SPP has given no objection. The bail application of the other accused were rejected.
4. We have heard Mr. Sardar Muhammad Ishaque, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Assistant Advocate General for the State.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that in the present case the order passed by the trial Court is not a speaking order as neither reasons have been assigned by the Judge for rejecting the bail application of the present accused or other co-accused nor any reasons have been assigned for grant of bail to the five co- accused. He has argued that neither name of the present applicant is mentioned in the FIR nor any specific role has been attributed to him. It is also stated by the learned counsel that the present applicant has not been subjected to identification test.
6. As against this Mr. Muhammad Saradar Khan, Assistant Advocate General Sindh has vehemently opposed this bail application the ground that the offences alleged are heinous and scheduled offences.
7. We have considered submission of the learned counsels, It is observed neither the narrus of the present applicant appears in the F.I.R, nor identification test has been held. Apart from the police personnels here are public persons who have witnessed incident and whose property has been damaged and some of them have received injuries. None of them in the 161 statement has implicated present applicant.' After arrest identification test could have been held through these witnesses but this important piece of evidence has been deliberately destroyed by the police, for the reasons best known, to them. Identification test could have also been held through police officers who had witnessed incident but this was also not done, It is also observed that the prosecution has not been able to show as to how the case of that present applicant is distinguishable from the case of those who have been granted by the trial Court. Mere saying that the case is distinguishable by the trial Court would not make the case so. The trial Judge is required to act responsibly in dealing with such cases and to assign the reasons for granting the bail or rejecting the bail. It is not mere whims of the trial Judge which would be the criteria for passing such orders.
In view of the above discussion we admit the present applicant to bail. The applicant shall be released subject to his furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs. 100.000/- P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.