NAZIR AHMAD Versus THE STATE

ORDER

Bail is sought in a case registered at Police Station Bhaki, District Sheikhupura vide F.I.R. No.427/94, dated 9-9-1994 for an offence under section 392, P.P.C. Shahbaz Anjam who is a taxi driver made a complaint on 9-9-1994 that three petitioners and another person on pistol point snatched away his car and threw him in the canal. The accused persons, of course were not known to him. Subsequently they were identified by him in the identification parade. The identification parade was supervised by Faqir Hussain Shahid, Magistrate 1st Class, Sheikhupura in the jail. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners were arrested on 9-9-1994 and the complainant has sworn an affidavit that the petitioners were not the persons who had snatched his taxi. Relying on Allah Bakhsh v. Nazar Hussain Shah and another 1979 SCMR 137, Ali Gul and 3 others v. The State 1986 PCr.LJ 433 and Syed Ali Raza and 15 others v. The State 1981 PCr.LJ 1080 he contends that in view of the sworn affidavit of the complainant the case has become of further inquiry and the petitioners should, therefore, be enlarged on bail.

2. Learned counsel for the State, however, opposes the bail application and submits that the identification parade was conducted under the supervision of the Magistrate 1st Class. The present affidavit has been sworn by the complainant under undue pressure of the petitioners, therefore, accused persons are not entitled to bail. He placed reliance on Yousaf Masih and another v. The State 1990 MLD 790.

3. In the instant case challan has been completed, though not yet submitted in Court. In the investigation all the three petitioners have been found to be fully involved in the commission of the crime. On 20-10-1994 identification parade was conducted in the District Jail, Sheikhupura under the supervision of the Magistrate 1st Class and the complainant duly identified the three petitioners to be the real accused. The complainant did not point out to the Magistrate that the petitioners were not the persons concerned with the commission of the crime. Prima facie, I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the State that the affidavit has been procured to seek release on bail. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are distinguishable because in none of those cases complainant had identified the accused persons before a Magistrate, as has been done in the instant case. The offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. There are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners are not involved in the commission of the crime. Resultantly, the bail application is rejected.

N.H.Q./N-322/L

Bail refused.