1. ' RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.---This is a case of highway robbery which occurred on 5-4-2005 at 11-00 p.m. Near Raja Pump National Highway, Panoakil when 4 persons armed with pistols and Lathies attempted to rob the complainant Umar Khan driver of Truck No.ACKF 3687 and its cleaner as they were changing the ptinctured tyre. During the said process highway police reached there then the culprits started running. There was encounter between highway police and dacoits but the dacoits by taking advantage of darkness ran away. Such F.I.R. Was lodged on 6-4-2005 at 1-00 a.m. At Police Station Panoakil. On 9-4-2005 all the accused persons were arrested, but before that the police could not collect any evidence against them as stated by A.A.-G. However on 1.9-4-2005 the police recorded statements of highway police officials and private witness. One of highway police officials A.S.-I. Muhammad Nawaz in his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Named all the present applicants to connect them with the case. Nevertheless after some days all the applicants were produced before the Magistrate for holding identification test through A.S.-I., Muhammad Nawaz who correctly picked out the applicants. This is the entire evidence against the applicants.
2. ' The learned Advocate for the applicants has stated that the police without collecting the evidence arrested the applicants on 9-4-2005 as such their arrest was illegal. He has further stated if P.W.
3. A.S.-I., Muhammad Nawaz identified the applicants then he could have immediately informed the police and the names of the applicants could have been mentioned in the F.I.R. And his statement could have been recorded earlier; that during the course- of investigation statements of only inteWsted witnesses were recorded; that there- was possibility that the applicants had been shown to witness at police station prior to identification test as the identification was held on 19-4- 2005 after 13 days of their arrest; that A.S.-I. Muhammad Nawaz was present at police station when his statement was recorded where the applicants were already confined and from there they were taken to identification test. As such the applicants have made out a case for grant of bail.
4. ' The learned A.A.-G. Has stated that this is a case of highway robbery therefore the applicants are not entitled to concession of bail. However he has no explanation to offer on the points submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants.
5. ' I have given due consideration to the arguments of learned Advocate for the applicant and A.A.- G. And found that submissions of learned Advocate for the applicants have weight. The learned A.A.-G. Could not controvert the arguments submitted by learned counsel for the applicants. The arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicants goes to the root of the case which carries weight regarding the delay in recording the statement of P.Ws. Though it was alleged that A.S.-I., Muhammad Nawaz identified the applicants at the time of incident and he took their names in his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. There is no explanation of delay in recording such statement, which creates doubt. The identification test in the circumstances of the case as stated by the learned counsel, has become doubtful. It is admitted position that at the time of arrest of the applicants, the police had not collected any tangible evidence warranting them to arrest the applicants as such apparently the arrest of the applicants in such circumstances speaks volumes of police highhandedness. However all these facts require deeper appreciation for which evidence is required to be recorded during trial.
6. After giving due consideration to the above facts and circumstances I am of the considered view that the applicants are entitled to the concession of bail, therefore bail is granted to the applicants in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (rupees two lac) each on their furnishing solvent surety with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
7. ' The application is allowed.
8. ' The observation made in this order is tentative in nature which shall not come in the way of trial Court while deciding the case.