6. The petitioner was in judicial lockup in some other
criminal case when implicated in this case by the
complainant through his supplementary statement, therefore,
in the attending circumstances the identification parade of
the petitioner is not helpful to the case of prosecution.
Furthermore, identification parade was conducted later on
and failure on the part of witnesses to describe the role of
accused at the time of identification parade is an inherent
defect, which renders the identification parade valueless and
unreliable. Guidance is sought from Muhammad Afzal alias
Abdullah and others v. The State and others (2009 SCMR
436), Bacha Zeb v. The State (2010 SCMR 1189) and Sabir
Ali alias Fauji v. The State (2011 SCMR 563). The
occurrence allegedly took place in the night between
8/9.4.2015 whereas the FIR was registered on 10.4.2015
after delay of about 22 hours without explaining any
sufficient reasons, therefore, chances of petitioner’s false
implication with deliberation after consultation cannot be
ruled out. Reliance can be made upon on the case of Nadeem
alias Nanha alias Billa Sher v. The State (2010 SCMR 949),
Muhammad Rafique and others v. The state and others (2010
SCMR 385) and Hadayatullah v. Abdul Hameed and
another (1984 SCMR 119).
Part of Judgment
THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
Criminal Miscellaneous (Bails)11901-B-15
2015 LHC 6650
0 Comments