1. The facts giving rise to the bail application are that on 9-6-2003 at 7-15 p.m., complainant Talib Hussain, deceased Haji Loung, P.W. Riaz Hussain and Ali Murad reached the bridge of Ghar Wah, G.T Road Larkana where the accused Shoukat Ali and Sikandar Ali armed with Pistols and one unidentified person who was subsequently identified to be the applicant Asghar Ali armed with Pistol intercepted them. At that time the complainant party was on Rickshaw. The said Rickshaw was got stopped. The appellant and co-accused brought the deceased out of the Rickshaw. The appellant aimed his Pistol at the P.Ws and threatened them not to move otherwise they will be killed. The co-accused fired fire-arm shots at the deceased which hit him. Due to fire-arm shots the deceased Haji Loung fell down on the ground. The deceased was taken to the Hospital where he died. The motive of the incident is enmity between the parties. Such F.I.R was lodged at Police Station Waleed on the same date at 8.15 p.m. A bail application was moved before the trial Court but the same was dismissed. Hence the present application. Learned Advocate for the applicant has stated that no identification marks of the appellant were given either in the F.I.R or in 161, Cr.P.0 statements of the P.Ws; that the appellant was identified in identifications parade held after ten days of the arrest of the applicant; that the P.Ws had not assigned him any role at the time of identification test therefore, the identification test has lost its value; that the identification test is held on 21-7-2003 and 22-7-2003 in which the complainant and P.W. Riaz and Ali Muhammad identified the applicant. In support of his arguments he has relied upon the cases of Lal Pasand v. The State PLD 1981 Supreme Court 142. The State of A.P. v. M.V Ramana Reddy AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1938, Rustam v. The State 1981 PCr.LJ 882, Shamsuddin v.
2. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 150, Shafique Ahmed v. The State 2002 PCr.L.J 518 and Mehmood Ahmad v. The State 1995 SCM R 127. He has further stated that in the dying declaration the deceased had assigned the part of causing him fire-arm injuries to the applicant also but the same is contrary to the facts mentioned in the F .1 . R. On the other hand learned Advocate for the complainant has stated that specific role has been assigned to the applicant in the F.I.R; that the identification test was held properly; that the role of holding Pistol has been assigned to the applicant by the P.Ws at the time of identification test.
3. Therefore, the case has been made out against the applicant. Learned State Counsel has adopted the arguments of the Advocate for the complainant.
4. I have given due consideration to the arguments, gone through the material available on the record and case law cited at the bar. I find that the three persons participated in the commission of this crime. Two accused persons have been assigned the role of causing fatal injuries to the deceased. The applicant who was unidentified at the time of incident but subsequently identified in the identification test by the complainant and P.Ws, have been assigned the role of accompanying the other two accused and reaching the place of incident. He has further been assigned the role of stopping the Rickshaw in which the complainant and P.Ws. Were sitting. Further the applicant and accused brought the deceased and P.Ws. From the Rickshaw. The applicant is further assigned the role of aiming his Pistol at the P.Ws with threats that they should not move other wise they will be killed. From all these facts it appears that there was common intention between all the three accused to commit the offence of murder therefore apparently the accused persons and applicant are responsible for the commission of said offence. As regards the identification test suffice it to say that the authority of Lal Pasand (supra) was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State, v. Farman Hussain reported in PLD 1995 SC 1 in which it has been held that identification test is not the requirement of law, and deviation can be made from rule laid down in the case of Lal Pasand.. It has further been held in the authority that the identification test is necessary when the P.Ws had momentary glimpse of the accused but if the accused had sufficient time to see the faces of the accused then the identification test is not necessary. However the case of the applicant is that the features of the applicant have not been given in the F.I.R or 161, Cr.P.0 statements and no role has been assigned to the applicant by the P.Ws at the time of identification test. In this connection it is pointed out that similar point was considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of. The State through Yakoob Khan v The State 1996 Supreme Court 97 and Solat Ali Khan v. The State 2002 SCM R 820. In these cases the P.Ws at the time of identification test did not assign the role to the accused but they assigned him the role at the time of giving deposition in the Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan took the view that the said evidence was sufficient to fulfil the requirement of law. However the points raised by the learned advocate for the applicant require deeper appreciation of evidence which can be undertaken at the time of trial. At the bail stage only tentative assessment of the evidence is required to be made. After considering the material available on the record, I am of the considered view that the applicant is not entitled to the concession of bail. Hence the application is dismissed.