1. ' By this order I propose to dispose of Criminal Bail Application bearing No,553 of 2000 arising out of Crime F.I.R. No,83 of 2000, Police Station Badah for offences under sections 324, 353, 148, 149, P.P.C.
2. Read with 17/2, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. Bail plea of the applicant Haji Meeral Gopang was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Larkana vide order, dated 27-11-2000.
3. ' The prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. Is that on 29-9-2000 at 2-30 p.m., complainant P.C.
4. 4389 namely Manzoor Ali Chandio of Police Station Badah lodged F.I.R. To the effect that he is serving as Constable at Badah Police Station. On 28-9-2000 as per roll call he alongwith P.C.
5. Deedar Ali and P.C. Abdul Ghaffar were deputed at Badah - Larkana Link Road to look after the Coaster which was taken vegetable within their jurisdiction. The F.I.R. Further shows that complainant alongwith his two companions left Badah Police Station for Dahri Chowk vide Entry No,20, dated 29-9-2000 at 3-45 a.m. In a Coaster bearing sale of the vegetable. They left on a road leading from Badah to Gujhar link road. It is said that at 4-30 a.m. When they reached near Chhutal Abro village they saw six persons namely Sikandar and Qurban both Gopan by Caste. They were duly armed with guns. The other four persons were unknown. One of them was armed with pistol whereas the rest were armed with Lathis and hatchets. The faces of the culprits were opened. The culprits were identified on the head light of the vehicle. Since the complainant party reached near the culprits, the culprits raised their weapons and on the flash of torch light signalled to stop the Coaster. The driver stopped the Coaster and in the meanwhile all the culprits standing on the road entered into Coaster. The culprits looking at the complainant party immediately left the vehicle and took shelter. It is said that the culprits tired from their respective weapons at the complainant party with intention to kill. The complainant party also fired in retaliation. The firing continued for about ten minutes and thereafter the culprits decamped from the scene of offence. On verification, it was found that P.C./Deedar Ali had sustained injury on his face and was bleeding. The F.I.R.
6. Further goes to say that the complainant alongwith P.C. Abdul Ghaffar followed the accused but the culprits taking the advantage of darkness bolted from the scene of offence. The complainant further states that thereafter he alongwith P.C. Abdul Ghaffar removed injured P.C. Deedar Ali to Dokri Police Station and after furnishing necessary information, they removed the injured to Dokri Hospital for first aid from where they were sent to Larkana Hospital and leaving the injured in the hospital the complainant went back to police station where he recorded F.I.R. As above. In F.I.R. The complainant states that they have clearly seen the unknown culprits at the spot and could be identified when brought before them. On 10-10-2000, the applicant was arrested and he was put to an identification test on 16-10-2000. After the completion of necessary investigation the applicant was sent up to stand trial in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Larkana.
7. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. It has been argued by the learned counsel that the name of the applicant does not find place in the F.I.R. No descriptions or features of the applicant were mentioned in the F.I.R. According to the record he was arrested on 10-10-2000 and put to an identification test on 16-10-2000. Whereas the recovery of hatchet was made on 18-10-2000 from the applicant. It has been further argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that according to F.I.R. No role has been ascribed to the present applicant. He has referred to the case of Zafar Ali v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 1761 in support of his contention and prayed that in the circumstances bail may be granted to him.
8. ' Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto learned State Counsel concedes to the grant of bail on the ground that identification test was conducted through police witnesses P.C. Abdul Ghaffar and P.C.
9. Manzoor Ali ignoring the private witnesses namely Driver Khan Muhammad Chandio and Cleaner Shah Nawaz Metlo.
10. ' I have given my anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the respective parties and perused the mateFial placed on record. Admittedly only piece of evidence against the applicant is identification test which is a hollow formality devoid of any legal sanctity, inasmuch as the incident was witnessed by four eye-witnesses namely P.C. Abdul Ghaffar, P.C. Manzoor Ali, Driver Khan Muhammad Chandio and Cleaner Shah Nawaz Metlo but the test proceedings were carried only in presence of police witnesses ignoring the independent persons namely Driver Khan Muhammad Chandio and Cleaner Shah Nawaz Metlo. The said test had taken place on the 6th day of his arrest for which no explanation has been given. The incident is said to have taken place during dark hours of night and the identification of culprits was made on torch light which is considered as weak piece of evidence. Besides this, name of the applicant is not appearing in F.I.R., neither descriptions nor features were mentioned therein. In the circumstances the applicant Haji Meeral Gopang has been able to make out a case for bail which is granted in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.