MUHAMMAD ARIF Versus STATE

1. SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J .‑ The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of learned Judge in Chambers of High Court of Sindh dated 1‑2‑1995 whereby the learned Judge refused to admit the petitioner to bail in a case registered against him alongwith several others under sections 302,324,147,148 and 149, P.P.C. Notice of this petition was issued to the State and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State this petition is converted into appeal and is disposed of as follows.

2. The relevant facts of the case are that on 11‑8‑1994 F.I.R.No 121/94 was registered under sections 147,148,149,302 and 324, P.P.C. at Police Station Saeedabad, Karachi, at the instance of Mst. Zeenat Ara. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that 6 persons came in a white car in front of her house. Out of them, 2 persons entered her house with their faces covered but she recognized them with their voices as Arshad and Tara. These two persons opened fire which resulted to the causing of injuries to her sons Muhammad Mohsin and Muhammad Hussain and daughter‑in‑law Shaheen Fatima and daughter Rubab Fatima'. After firing all the 6 persons decamped from scene. As a result of this firing the two sons of the complainant died and her daughter and daughter‑in‑law suffered serious arm injuries. The police after investigation let off two nominated accused in the F.I.R. namely Arshad and Tara under section 169, Cr.P.C. and instead 9 other persons were challaned in the case. Out of them, 4 were arrested whose names were given as Muhammad Shakil, Mujahid Khan, Muhammad Rashid and petitioner. The rest of the 5 have been declared as absconders in the case. The learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court of Sindh declined to admit the petitioner to bail on the ground that in the statement of 2 prosecution witnesses namely, Zafar Abbas and Amjad Raza, recorded by the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. the petitioner was identified while he was fleeing from the scene of the offence. We have called for the police papers in the case and gone through the statement of 2 prosecution witnesses Zaffar Abbas and Amjad Raza recorded by the police after about 8 days of the incident under section 161, Cr.P.C. on 23‑8‑1994. We find that in that statement, the petitioner has not at all been named by these witnesses. Even in their supplementary statement recorded by the police on 15‑9‑1994 the witnesses have not implicated the present petitioner in the offence alleged in the F.I.R. as no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner in the commission of the crime. The learned State Counsel also admits that no identification test was held after arrest of the petitioner. In` these circumstances on basis of the material so far collected by the police in the case, it cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is guilty of the offence which is punishable with death or transportation of life. We, accordingly, allow bail to the petitioner in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety and P.R. in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

3. N.H.Q./M‑3293/S Bail granted.