1. ' BIN YAMIN, J.--- Applicant/accused Abdul Rasheed seeks bail in case F.I.R. No,61 of 2007 registered at Police Station Kotdiji under section 17/3, H.O., 452, 34, P.P.C.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that on 7-5-2008 complainant Wajid Ali lodged F.I.R. Of this case stating therein that at about 2-30 p.m. When he was present at his house at that time he heard voice of stopping of motorcycle in front of their house. That thereafter two persons, among whom one was armed with pistol and other one was empty-handed entered in their house. It is further alleged that on pistol point accused overpowered the complainant and asked him to give them the keys of the safe. That he informed the accused that the keys are not available with him, on this the accused broke open the door of the safe and took gold ornaments, mobile phone and cash amount lying in the said safe. That thereafter accused extending threats went away. The complainant further alleged that thereafter he raised cries which attracted the witnesses, whose names are mentioned in the F.I.R. And further stated that witnesses also saw the accused persons whose faces were open while taking away the robbed articles. That thereafter the complainant informed about the incident to his brother Wahid Bux, who is an employee in National Bank of Pakistan. His brother then came to their house and after seeing the place of incident, he asked him to lodge the report of matter with police. After registration of the case during the investigation police arrested applicant/accused in another case, whereafter he was also included among the culprits of this case. Applicant/accused since the time of his arrest is behind the bars. Earlier bail application made on behalf of applicant/accused was rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Khairpur under his order dated 3-6-2008 hence this bail application.
3. ' Heard Advocate for applicant/accused, learned A.A.-G. For the State and perused the case papers.
4. ' Learned counsel for applicant/accused submitted that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further contended that neither the name of applicant/accused is mentioned in the F.I.R. Nor any description of his features are given by the complainant at the time of lodging of the F.I.R. That after the arrest of the applicant/accused no robbed article has been secured from his possession to connect him with the commission of this incident. That the only piece of evidence collected against the accused is the alleged identification parade in which he was allegedly identified by the complainant. He further contended that this identification parade was held on 31-1-2008 whereas the incident took place on 7-5-2007, which shows that alleged identification parade of the applicant/accused was held, after about 8/9 months of the incident.
5. That no effect part in the commission of offence has been attributed to applicant/accused. That no evidentiary value can be attributed to the identification parade which was held after long time of the incident. To support his contention he relied upon Asghar Ali alias Sabah and others v. The State 1992 SCM R 2088, - 1995 SCM R 127, Muhammad Pervez and others v. The State and others 2007 SCM R 670, Tahir Abbas v. The State 2003 SCM R 426 and Badaruddin alias Majid Shah v. The State 2008 PCr.LJ 495.
6. ' Learned A.A.-G. Has strongly opposed this bail application and submitted that the applicant/accused at the time of incident was seen by the complainant, as he had come at the place of incident with open face. That so far as delay in holding identification parade is concerned i.e, immaterial having regard to the facts of the case. To elaborate his contention learned A.A.-G.
7. Submitted. That the applicant/accused was arrested in this case on 31-1-2008 and the identification parade in which applicant/accused was identified as culprit, was held on the very day i.e, 31-1-2008 therefore, according to him there is no delay in holding the identification parade.
8. That there is nothing on record to show that complainant has any motive or reason to falsely implicate the applicant/accused in this incident. That the applicant/accused had accompanied with co-accused to the house of complainant i.e, place of incident from which robbery was committed, and subsequently, on arrest of co-accused robbed articles were secured from his possession. That no evidence in this matter has been recorded, to fix the individual responsibility of the accused at this stage. That no deeper study of the evidence can be undertaken at the stage of bail. He, therefore, requested for rejection of the bail application under consideration.
9. I have considered the contentions raised at Bar and have gone through the material available on record. The applicant/accused has been identified as a culprit of this case in identification parade, which was held on the very day when he was arrested in this case. Nothing is available on the record to show that complainant had any reason or motive to falsely implicate the applicant/accused in this case. The incidents of robbery take place off and on, therefore, to discourage the people having such tendencies the Courts are not supposed to release the culprits an technical grounds. The facts of the cases cited by learned counsel for the applicant/accused are reterially different from the facts of the case under consideration, therefore, the rule of law laid down in those case is not applicable to the facts of this case, hence finding no merit in this bail application I, hereby reject the same.
10. ' Before parting with the order, I would like to direct the learned trial Court to dispose of this case within four months after receipt of this order. The learned trial Court is further directed that to secure the attendance of the witnesses, he can issue coercive process against them,, if the circumstances so warrant.