GHULAM NABI Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. The brief facts of the matter per F.I.R. No.225 of 1999 registered with Police Station Dadu are that at about 6-30 p.m. on 19-11-1999 the complainant alongwith his brother Faiz Muhammad and nephew Mithal and Zahid had gone to Dadu for their personal work. When they were returning to their village, two persons emerged from a bunch of trees and asked them to stop. On this Faiz Muhammad abused the culprits and then one of the culprits fired at Faiz Muhammad from his pistol which hit him on his chest and abdomen. The complainant party raised cries, upon which the culprits ran away. On the way to the hospital the injured Faiz Muhammad expired and hence the complaint.

2. On the basis of foregoing facts learned counsel for the applicant has firstly submitted that not only the identification test is delayed by one week but also the applicant has been picked out only being one of the persons involved in the crime and no role has been attributed to him as such. Secondly, it was a night time incident and admittedly in the month of November the sun sets at about 6-00 p.m. and hence it is quite strange as to how the complainant party could recognize the applicant after more than six months of the date of incident when the identification parade was held. Finally learned counsel has stated that all the prosecution witnesses are related inter se hence their account could only be relied upon, once it has been subjected to cross-examination by the learned trial Court. In support of his submissions learned counsel has relied upon Gul Baig v. The State PLD 1964 Kar. 275, Muhammad Ali v. The State 1978 PCr.LJ 859 and Ghulam Nabi v. The State 1992 PCr.LJ 1852.

3. On the other hand learned State Counsel has opposed the grant of bail on the basis that the applicant is involved in a capital offence and has been picked out in the identification test.

4. I have heard both the learned counsel as well as learned State Counsel. It is settled law that a delayed identification test both with reference to the date of occurrence and the date when the accused was taken into custody is always looked upon with the maximum caution by the Courts of law. For this principle Asghar Ali v. The State 1992 SCMR 2088 and The State v. Farman Hussain PLD 1995 SC 1 can be cited: Further, the evidentiary value of the identification parade whereby the accused is nominated without attributing to him his role in the crime is also minimal without corroborative evidence for which Mahmood Ahmed v. The State can be cited. It is admitted before me that the identification parade took place after more than 6 months of the date of incident which was a night time one and after a week of the accused having been taken into custody, which is the major piece of evidence so for gathered together by the prosecution. Result of the identification test in my view at this stage is not sufficient to clearly link the accused with the crime in question. Consequently he is entitled to the grant of bail.

5. The above are the reasons for the short order passed by myself today i.e. 8-11-2001, whereby the bail was granted to the applicant.

6. H.B.T./G-86/K Bail granted.