RASHID ALI Versus State

ORDER

SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.- --The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 13, dated 11-1-2012, under sections 302, 396, 412, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Chatiana, District Toba Tek Singh.

2. Precisely the prosecution case as narrated by the complainant is that he was present at the house of his brother Muhammad Amin and they chatted about some domestic issues; it was after the Fajar prayer time, when someone rang the bell at the outer door of the house, at about 7-00 a.m.; Muhammad Amin deceased opened the gate and found seven armed men standing at the door; they overpowered Muhammad Amin and pushed him inside the house; they snatched cash Rs.4,000 from him, Rs.3,000 from Muhammad Ahmad and Rs.5,000 from Ejaz along with their national identity cards at gunpoint; Muhammad Amin showed bravery and made an attempt to catch one of the dacoits, whereupon, the other one who wore a maroon colour shirt, made a fire shot with his pistol which hit the neck of Muhammad Amin; all other accused also resorted to firing and one of the fire shots landed at the chest of Muhammad Amin who fell on the ground badly wounded; the accused after committing the crime fled the scene in Car No.LZS-0789 Corolla XLI white colour; the injured succumbed to the injuries on way to the hospital; the complainant gave a description of external features of the accused in the F.I.R. with the contention that he could identify them if he would ever see them again.

3. According to the record, the above said car was intercepted by the police at a picket later in the day, which was ridden by accused Muhammad Zeeshan, Usman, Rashid (petitioner), Waseem, Ali Hassan, Muhammad Asif and Sabir Ali. Some of them possessed illicit arms for which all of them were hauled up by the police and taken to the police station. The police sent the above said accused to the judicial lock-up for the purpose of test identification parade which was so held on 19-1-2012, during the course of which the accused-petitioner was correctly picked up by an eye-witness Ejaz but complainant failed to identify him. The other eye-witness Muhammad Ahmad however, did not participate in the test identification parade.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has no concern with the occurrence contained in the F.I.R. and he has been involved in this case merely on suspicions; the petitioner was allegedly arrested on the very day of the occurrence but he was not found armed by the police, when they intercepted the vehicle of the accused; the evidence regarding test identification parade is contradictory in respect of the petitioner which brings the case of the petitioner within mischief of further inquiry under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.; the recovery of cash Rs.1,000 and a copy of the NIC of the complainant hardly incriminate the petitioner as this particular piece of evidence has been fabricated by the prosecution to lend strength to its case; the petitioner is behind the bars since 11-1-2012 and he is not required for the purpose of investigation any longer.

5. On the other hand, learned APG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes with the contention that the petitioner joined by his co-accused committed a heinous offence during the course of which they committed the murder of Muhammad Amin deceased for none of his fault; the accused-petitioner and his co-accused have committed a gruesome offence not only against an individual but also against the society as a whole; the fact that the petitioner had not been identified by the complainant does not mar the quality of the prosecution case in any manner as, the other eye-witness Muhammad Ejaz was mentally alert enough to identify the accused-petitioner during the above said exercise; the medical evidence fully supports the story contained in the F.I.R.; the recovery of cash, NIC of one of the victims and a pistol at the instance of petitioner validly constitute an incriminating piece of evidence against the accused; the trial has commenced and four prosecution witnesses have already been recorded; finally submits that the offence committed by the petitioner catches the prohibition of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the complainant while reporting the crime to the police gave a brief description of the external features of the accused with the contention that he could identify them, if he would see them again. Similar were the contentions of the other victims. In these circumstances, the best mode for identification of the accused was none else than the test identification parade, which was held on 19-1-2012, during the course of which one of the victims Ijaz Ahmad correctly picked up the accused-petitioner. The complainant, however, failed to do so. Its effect/import shall be determined by the trial Court during the course of trial. The petitioner was taken into custody on 21-1-2012 and being on physical remand he got recovered cash Rs.1,000, three identity cards pertaining to Maqsood Ahmad (complainant), Muhammad Ahmad and Ijaz Ahmad on 31-1-2012. He also got recovered a pistol .30-bore on 27-1-2012. The charge against the petitioner is heinous and alarmingly dangerous. Muhammad Amin had been murdered for the only reason that he showed resistance during an occurrence of dacoity committed by the petitioner and his co-accused, who too had been identified by the victims at test identification parade, on 19-1-2012. It is a settled principle of law that in cases of dacoity the individual role of an accused does not matter much and every participant of a such like crime, regardless his role, would be an accused in equal degree. Hence, the objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is without any substance. The trial of the accused has commenced and four prosecution witnesses have already been examined by the trial Court. In these circumstances, any comments on merits of the case may not be advisable as it may cause prejudice to the case of either of the sides. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the case "Rehmat Ullah v. The State and another" (2011 SCMR 1332).

7. It is noted with concern that crime rate qua robberies and dacoities had touched alarming heights in the recent past. The robbers and the dacoits are on the rampant and there is little respite for a common man at the hands of such outlawed. It was a gruesome and dastardly crime committed by the petitioner and his co-accused. The offences, the petitioner is charged with, catch the prohibition of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. No circumstance exists to believe that the petitioner's case calls for further probe into his guilt within the meaning of section 497(2), Cr.P.C.

8. For the foregoing reasons, I am not inclined to accept this application, which is dismissed accordingly.

9. Before parting with this order, the learned trial Court is directed to accelerate the proceedings of the trial and conclude it as immediately and conveniently as possible.

MWA/R-29/L Bail refused.