' SALMAN ANSARI, J.--- This bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant/accused Wasim alias Don, against whom an F.I.R. Was registered at Police Station Malir City on 11-10-2007 by one Ali Dar who along with his brother Bagga and companions Ali Bux, Zahid, Lihana, Pervez and Allah Ditta had brought animals to the city to sell at Malir Mandi, after the sale on 10-10-2007 when they boarded wagon for Quaidabad they found three persons seated as the bus started three more young men entered, at a distance they took out pistols and told the driver to park the bus in a lane, on resistance the culprits shot Bagga and injured Ali Bux and Lihana and snatched Rs,4,15,000 Bagga died of injures, hence a case under section 397, P.P.C. Was registered against unknown culprits.
2. On 8-11-2007 the applicant/accused was arrested in another case and put to identification and was picked out by P.Ws. Lihana and Ali Bux the injured in the present case.
3. The learned IIind Additional District and Sessions Judge, Malir was pleased to reject the bail of the accused, hence this bail application on the grounds agitated that there is an unexplained delay in lodging of the F.I.R., the P.Ws. Had seen the accused at the police station prior to the identification parade which was conducted after a delay of 7 days, nothing has been recovered of the looted property, accused has been granted bail in the case he was arrested in F.I.R. No,161 of 2007 of Police Station Malir City.
4. Learned counsel for applicant has argued that the weapons allegedly recovered from the applicant are not connected with the incident/firing. In support of his contention learned counsel for applicant has relied upon Ali Ahmed v. The State 1987 M LD 2592, Akhtar Muhammad v. The State 1987 PCr.LJ 2423, Mushtaq Ali Kalhoro v. State 1996 PCr.LJ 1315, Ghulam Murtaza v. State 2000 YLR 2020, Ali Jan alias Lakho v. The State 2001 YLR 772, Tariq Aziz v. The State 2001 YLR 1425, Abdul Hameed v. The State 2004 M LD 413, Ali Raza alias Raza Haider v. The State 2008 PCr.LJ 663, Muhammad Bachal v. The State 2008 YLR 1733 and Mukhtar v. State 1998 M LD 1985.
5. Learned State Counsel has opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is a dangerous criminal calling himself "Don", he is involved in a very heinous offence of dacoity apart from the huge amount of money looted and innocent person killed, two received gunshot injuries all being unarmed, the applicant has been identified, and there is sufficient evidence against the accused to fully implicate him in this case.
6. Having heard the arguments put-forth. In this case the applicant/accused has been implicated in a non-bailable offence and the Magistrate concerned had put the applicant/accused to an identification parade where he has been picked up from the line up by two P.Ws. Both were injured in the incident, the evidentiary value of the identification parade is yet to be seen. Prima facie, it carries substantial weight for consideration of bail considering there is no enmity alleged for false implication, there is no such delay in lodging of F.I.R. Under the circumstances, hence finding at this stage there is prima facie sufficient evidence to show the involvement of the accused Wasim alias Don in committing this crime.
7. With due respect to the case-law cited in a case where robbery has been committed and the complainant has suffered financial loss as well as loss of his brother and the P.Ws. Have also been injured the case-law cited by the learned counsel for applicant would not be applicable in this case, hence, I am inclined to reject this bail application, which is accordingly rejected.