It is not denied that Zaheer Ahmad petitioner is a next-door neighbour of the complainant party and the eye-witnesses and the said Zaheer Ahmad were consequently known to each other. A bare perusal of the F.I.R. Would also demonstrate that the culprits had not muffled their faces at the time of occurrence and in fact the complexion of the faces of both the accused sons etc. Were mentioned in the F.I.R.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that it is strange that despite knowing Zahoor accused, the complainant did not nominate. Him in the F.I.R. And instead reported therein that two unknown persons had committed the offence in question whose description he mentioned therein.
One of the Investigating Officer had declared Zaheer petitioner as innocent and affidavits from three witnesses have also been placed on record wherein it has been deposed that Zaheer petitioner was not the culprit. It is further argued that the test identification parade had been held at least nine days after the arrest of Zaheer petitioner and over a month after the occurrence.
3. Having considered all these facts and circumstances, I find that Zaheer Ahmad petitioner who has remained in custody, for over eleven months, has made out a case for his release on bail. He is consequently admitted to bail case E F.I.R. No.545 of 1994 of Police Station Phoolnagar, District Kasur, subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Pattoki.