ABDUL HAMID Versus MANSOOR MALIK
ORDER
This is a petition on behalf of Gulraiz Akhtar arising out of a case registered vide F.I.R No. 256 P.S. Bhagtanwala (now Police Station Kirana) district Sargodha, dated 16‑12‑1983. It was recorded on the statement of Muhammad Aslam Driver of Van No. 655/CHG. It is stated by him in the F.I.R. that on date at 6/7 a.m. he left Sargodha for Lahore with 16 passengers, one of whom told him that two passengers will board near the S.P. House Sargodha. When the Van reached near Sem Nala, one of those three persons took out a revolver and directed him to take the Van on the side road of the said Nala. He accordingly drove the Wagon to a barren place about 1i kilometre from the Paces road. Those persons forcibly searched the passengers and thus collected enough money, identity card, watches etc. from the passengers. On the basis of this the present case was registered wherein no one was named as an accused nor the name of any passenger was recorded it appears that on 13‑1‑1984, Yakki Gate, Lahore Police arrested Gulraiz petitioner and his two companions and recovered a Brief‑case containing various articles from him which pertained to P.S. Muridke After their arrest various police stations including the police of Police Station Bhagtanwala was informed. Inspector Sadder then arranged test identi fication parade on 19‑2‑1984 where Gulraiz Akhtar was identified by three passengers. After the test identification parade Gulraiz was taken to Sargodha from where on the same day he got recovered Rs. 3,000 while leading the police party to his bungalow. He unsuccessfully applied for bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, hence this petition.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact there was no recovery from the petitioner and even if it is admitted that the amount of Rs. 3,000 was recovered at his instance then also there was no mark of identification on these notes. It is next contended that the identification parade was held one month and 6 days after the arrest of the petitioner and was, therefore, meaningless. It is, therefore, argued that the petitioner be allowed bail till the disposal of the case. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this petition.
3. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. The points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner pertain to deeper appreciation of the evidence which cannot be gone into at this stage. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
M . Y . H . Bail refused.