SHADOO vs THE STATE

ORDER

1. ' BIN YAMIN, J.---This order will dispose of bail application made on behalf of applicant! Accused Shadoo son of Mour, who is detained in case F.I.R No, 50/2007, registered under sections 302 and 511, P.P.C. Read with section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, at Police Station Sultankot.

2. ' Heard Advocate for the applicant/ accused, learned State counsel and perused the case papers.

3. ' Brief facts of the case are that on 23-10-2007, complainant Dildar Ahmed lodged F.I.R at above noted police station, stating therein that on 22-10-2007, at 5-30 hours, in the morning his nephew Muhammad Nawaz, deceased Wahid Bux and Muhammad Shahid left their respective houses for working as labour on tractor trolley. At that time complainant also came out from his house and was standing on the road. That, thereafter the tractor along with above named three persons proceeded and at 6-00 hours, complainant saw five persons having weapons in their hands coming out from railway tower wireless. That among them complainant identified accused Aligul armed with gun, Abdul Sattar armed with rifle, and Ramzan with gun, accompanied by two unidentified persons. That they attempted to rob all the three persons who were going on tractor, but the said three persons informed the culprits that they have nothing to give them, on this it is alleged that accused Abdul Sattar who was armed with rifle made a direct rifle fire on Wahid Bux, who on sustaining fire-arm injury fell down on the tractor's seat. He has sustained fire-arm injury on back side of his head. Wahid Bux died on the spot. In the meantime police of Sultankot Police Station also came on the spot to whom complainant narrated the facts of the case. Thereafter, post-mortem of deceased Wahid Bux was conducted at about night time, whereafter complainant informed their Nekmard Allahwadhayo. Who was at that time at Karachi. Their Nekmard told the complainant that he himself is coming to Shikarpur, and on the next day on his arrival he advised the complainant to lodge F.I.R of the matter. Thereafter, on 23-10-2007, complainant lodged F.I.R of this case.

4. ' Applicant/accused was arrested by the police on 7-5-2008. Earlier bail application made on behalf of the applicant/ accused was rejected by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, vide his order dated 19-8-2008, hence this bail application.

5. ' Learned counsel for the applicant/ accused submitted that neither name of the this applicant find place in the F.I.R of the case nor any active part in the commission of the offence is alleged against him. That the three accused persons whose names were given by the complainant in the F.I.R as culprits of this case have been let off by police dealing their case under section 169, Cr.P.C. And they have been released on bail by the police under sections 496 and 497, Cr.P.C. That the complainant had in the F.I.R alleged that he saw two unidentified persons along with three accused who were named in the F.I.R, as culprits of this case, but subsequently after arrest of the applicant/accused no identification parade of this accused was held to identify him as culprit of this case. Thus neither the name of the applicant/accused find place in the F.I.R nor in any identification parade before competent authority he has been identified by the complainant and other prosecution witnesses, therefore, the case of the applicant/ accused requires further enquiry.

6. ' That applicant/ accused is detained in judicial custody and is no more required by the police for further investigation. The accused cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period on the basis of vague allegations and grounds. He therefore, requested for grant of this bail application.

7. ' Learned State counsel has no objection to the grant of this bail application, as neither name of this accused is mentioned in the F.I.R nor he has been identified in any identification parade after his arrest.

8. I have considered the contentions raised at the bar and have also perused the case papers. The admitted position of the case is that neither the name of applicant/ accused find place in the F.I.R, nor after his arrest any identification parade of this accused was held to identify him as a culprit of this case. The applicant/accused at this stage is not required by the police for further investigation and furthermore the three nominated accused have been released by the police under section 169, read with sections 496 and 497, Cr.P.C. And the challan against them has been accepted by the concerned Magistrate. The learned counsel for applicant states that said order of acceptance of challan has not been challenged by the complainant side before any competent Court of law. In view of the above noted facts of the case I am of the opinion that a case for grant of bail to the applicant is made out for the reasons given above. I, therefore, allow this bail application and order release of applicant on bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,100,000 (one lac) with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.