MUHAMMAD ALI Versus STATE

ORDER

This is an application for bail with regard to offences under section 302(34, P. P. C. According to the contents of the F. I. R. some persons had reached near the Rest House, Khanewal. There the complainant Abdul Hamid and another were on watch duty. They questioned the identity of these two approaching persons whereafter one of them fired at Noor Din on account of which he died. The two accused then ran away.

It was stated by the complainant in the F. I. R., that he would identify the two persons if they are brought before him. According to the learned counsel for the State, who is assisted by the Investigating Officer, no identification parade took place. He however, relies on the statement of Sultan Ahmad whose cycle was allegedly stolen by the two accused petitioners. There are two other witnesses also who have identified the cloth left behind by the petitioners at the scene of the occurrence. As admittedly no identification parade was conducted particularly when the complainant specifically stated that he could recognise the persons, I think it is a case for further inquiry. The petitioners are, therefore, directed to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000 (twenty thousand) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Khanewal.

2. The trial Court, however, shall be at liberty to consider the question of cancellation of bail in case any evidence is brought before it justifying the identity.

Bail granted.