MUHAMMAD ASIF Versus STATE

1. This Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the present applicant who is involved in a case registered as Crime No. 15 of 1992 Sakhi Pir Police Station, Hyderabad.

2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this Revision Application are that an application under section 498, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail before arrest has been moved before the Sessions Judge, Hyderabad Sindh who on 26‑4‑1992 passed the following order:

3. "Heard the applicant's Advocate. The applicant is also present.

4. Notice to D.P.P. Call police papers through the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer is directed to bring the prosecution witnesses for the purpose of identification test. The complainant and other inmates of the house claim that they can identify the culprits. All the P.Ws. who are able to identify the culprits are required to be produced in Court by the Investigating Officer on 29‑4‑1992 at 1 p.m. The applicant is required to conceal his identity till the identification test.

5. (Sd.)

6. Sessions Judge, Hyderabad

7. 26‑4‑1992

8. Mr. S. Madad Ali Shah, the learned counsel for the applicant has assailed this order on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad should not have passed the order directing the Investigating Officer to bring the prosecution witnesses for the purposes of identification test of the applicant in Court. The learned counsel states that this is the function of the Investigating Agency and not the Court and that Court should not interfere with the investigation and assume the role of Investigating Officer. Reliance is placed on the case of Shahnaz Gut v. The State PLD 1972 SC 677.

9. Mr. Abdul Latif Ansari, learned Assistant Advocate‑General Sindh in view of the above circumstances candidly conceded.

10. Accordingly the Revision Application is allowed to the extent that the order of the Sessions Judge, Hyderabad directing the Investigating Officer to produce prosecution witnesses in the Court for the purpose of identification of the applicant is quashed. However, Sessions Judge will be at liberty to hear bail application on its merits. The main case as well as Miscellaneous Applications stand disposed of.

11. N.H.Q./M‑1669/K Revision petition accepted.