' MUNIB AKHTAR, J.---By means of a short order, I had today granted bail to the bail applicants, subject to each furnishing one solvent surety and PR bond in the sum of Rs,75,000. The following are the reasons of my having done so.
2. This bail 'application arose out of F.I.R. No,224 of 2010 registered at Police Station Jamshoro on 6- 9-2010 at 2000 hours in respect of an incident said to have occurred on 4-9-2010 at 0900 hours.
According to the complainant, he is the cashier at a petrol pump/station situated on Super Highway near Jamshoro. On the day of the incident; the complainant was present at the petrol station along with certain other persons, all of whom were identified in the F.I.R., and who included a police officer along with constables, who had come to the station to settle accounts for petrol purchased for official vehicles. According to the complainant, at about 9-00 a.m. Five unknown persons suddenly came there on two motorcycles. Two of the men remained outside the office while the other three entered. Two of them were armed with Kalashnikovs and one had a pistol in his hand. The complainant, stated that the men overpowered all of the persons present in the office= and then proceeded to rob them of the cash and property, the details of which are stated in the F.I.R. The men then went away on the motorcycles on which they had come. The complainant stated that he informed the manager of the petrol station of what had happened, and he was difected to register the F.I.R. On the date and time above mentioned.
3. Learned counsel for the bail applicant submitted that admittedly the bail applicants bad not been nominated in the F.I.R. Her case was that the bail applicants had in fact been arrested in some other matter and had been kept at the C.I.A. Centre on 14-9-2010. She submitted that there was nothing substantive to connect the bail applicants with the present incident and they had been falsely involved in it by the police. They were therefore, entitled to be released on bail.
4. The I.O. Of the case was present in court. When he was asked to explain how the bail applicants came to be connected with the present incident, he stated that on 12-9-2610 he had received spy information that the bail applicants were the two men involved in the incident. On a query from the court, he confirmed that he had received spy information only with regard to the bail applicants and no other person. The I.O. Then said that on 16-9-2010 he received information over the police wireless network that two men of the same names had been arrested by the police and were in police lockup at Police Station Hussainabad. The I.O. Stated that on 17-9-2010 he obtained permission to have the identification parade of the bail applicants conducted, for which purpose, the bail applicants were finally arrested in connection with the present matter on 22-9-2010 from Police Station Hussainabad. The identification parade, according to the 1.0., was held on 23-9-2010 and the complainant and other persons who had been present at the petrol station, as per the F.I.R., identified the two men.
5. Learned Deputy P.-G. Opposed the grant of bail. He submitted that the bail applicants were clearly connected with the incident and that they had been properly identified at the identification parade and were involved in the heinous offence of armed dacoity and therefore, were not entitled to bail.
6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record with their assistance, I came to the conclusion that -the bail applicants were entitled to the grant of bail. It is to be seen that even as per the F.I.R. Itself, none of the accused persons was identified on the spot and it was clearly stated therein that the men who committed the dacoity were unknown to all the persons present there. The bail applicants were arrested on 14-9-2010 (or in any case by 16-9-2010) but the identification parade was held much later, after the passage of several days, on 23-9-2010.
The only information that connected the bail applicants with the incident was the spy information allegedly obtained by the I.O. On 12-9-2010. Even before arresting the bail applicants, he had already obtained permission for holding an, identification parade. It was admitted and confirmed by the I.O. That no recovery had been made fro& the bail applicants. In my view, in these circumstances, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the identification parade, which in any case is not a strong type of evidence, may have been tainted by the fact that the complainant and other witnesses were shown the bail applicants when they, were in lockup, whether at the CIA centre as claimed by the learned counsel for bail applicants, or at Police Station Hussainabad as claimed by the I.O. In my view, this was a clear case which requires further inquiry before the involvement or otherwise of the bail applicants can be determined and therefore, I was satisfied that they were entitled to bail, which I granted by means of the short order noted above.