1. SYED ZAKIR HUSSAIN, J.---On 19-12-2008, the complainant reported to the police that three unknown persons armed with repeater committed robbery by having snatched the repeater of one Moula Bux with his license while present on the place of wardhat at 6-30 a.m., and also caused his death by having given to him single fire shot through their aforesaid weapons, and 'then managed to escape. The police registered the F.I.R. and began to investigate the same. One Rahib and another namely, Taimoor were arrested in the case as suspect on 8-2-2009 under one and the same memo before the same mashirs. No crime weapon was secured from their respective possession, either on the relevant time or later on. The robbed property referred to above, was also not secured either from their possession or on their pointation in any manner whatsoever. The deceased who had sustained single shot injury and died on the spot was subjected to postmortem and according to the Medical Officer, such, injury caused such death being fatal.
2. The police during the investigation secured blood-stained earth from the spot in a sealed cover. No crime empty was secured but upper portion (made 'of lead) of the bullet was secured. The co- accused Rahib arrested on 1-2-2009 disclosed on 7-2-2009, during the investigation of the police, the name of his third companion of the crime in 'question, as Riaz. The said Riaz however, surrendered himself before the learned Sessions. Judge, and got the pre arrest bail from the same Court on 11-6-2009 'in Crime No,347/2009. The order shows that ad interim pre-arrest bail granted on 5-5-2009, was confirmed in the same terms and conditions in the matter. The case-law relied on is reported as 2005 M LD 716 2005 M LD 997, 2007 PCr.LJ 1902 and 2007 YLR 1598, which is on the point of further enquiry.
3. Learned counsel. states that the accused Taimoor, the present applicant, when requested for grant of bail on similar footings, was refused by the order dated 5-4-2010 on the ground that he was picked up in the identification test as one of the culprits. In this regard, learned counsel states that since the said test carried no reference of the role and that it was held after 14 days of the arrest in question, the same could hardly carry any weight and the learned Judge ignored the principles and norms of law settled by the superior courts of the country on such aspect. The case according the learned counsel appears to be one of further enquiry as a whole for all accused persons including the applicant, yet, the learned trial Court, that had, already extended such benefit in similar circumstances on such score of law to one of the co-accused named above, refused to extend the same in a case of present applicant and such refusal amounts to using two different yard sticks or course of pick and choose in the matter of grant and refusal of bail.
4. Learned State counsel concedes the request.
5. The applicant is granted bail against furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 with P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
6. The copies of this matter may be sent to the Registrar for onward transmission to the learned trial Judge for his future guidance. The Registrar is directed to take the notice that the bail before arrest under section 498, Cr.P.C. has been granted to one of the accused persons by the Judge in the matter of .the trial pending in his Court, despite the fact that such accused was wanted thereof and in such a case, he could only seek post arrest bail. Therefore, pre-arrest bail granted in shape of ad interim order and then by the order confirming the same on two different dates, is nothing but a favour which is no service to justice.