WALAYAT BEGUM Versus REVISING AUTHORITY, M.D.A., MIRPUR
ORDER
1. Heard Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Agha Zafar Ali for the State. The F.I.R. in this case was registered on 15-1-1997 for offence under section 17(3) Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance. The learned advocate for the applicant has requested for bail on the ground that the only piece of evidence against the applicant is that his name was disclosed by co-accused. After his arrest he was not subjected to identifications as is required under the law.
2. The learned State counsel concedes that after the arrest of applicant there has been no identification but the accused was identified by P.W. Muhammad Yasin.
3. The learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi Central in his order dated 6-3-1997 has mentioned as under:--
4. "The perusal of file shows that name of the applicant/accused was disclosed to the complainant and eye-witness by co-accused Rizwan Ahmed, who was arrested on the spot, hence the name - of applicant/accused is mentioned in the F.I.R. Besides that the Mashirnama of arrest shows that applicant/accused was arrested on the basis of identification by P.W. Muhammad Yasin who is eye-witness of the incident."
5. The lower Court rejected the bail application because P.W. Muhammad Yasin identified the applicant. The learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that there has been no identification parade as is required under the law and, therefore, identification by P.W. Mohammad Yasin at the police station is against the requirement of law. The learned State counsel has conceded to this legal position. So if we omit this piece of evidence there is the fact that the name of applicant was disclosed by co-accused. This piece of evidence will have to be examined in the light of provision of Qanoon-e-Shahadat. The learned Advocate for the applicant has relied on decisions reported in PLD 1996 Karachi page 534 and PLD 1991 FSC page.
53. Their Lordship of Federal Shariat Court in paragraph 10 of the Judgment have ruled as under:--
6. "10. In Islamic Criminal Law, the confession of an accused against the co-accused is not acceptable and if there is no other proof against him. he will not be punished on the said confession."
7. This being the position of law, I grant bail to the applicant subject to furnishing of surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
8. H.B.T./M-229/K Bail granted.