1. The applicants have been sent up to stand trial under section 459, P. P. C. The allegations against them are that-they on the night between 6th and 7th of July, 1980, were found standing in the house of the com--plainant and the applicant, Khan Mohd., out of them was armed with a shot- gun. When the complainant and Rajab Ali challenged them, he fired a gun-shot, which hit the complainant on his right leg. They raised cries but the assailants made their escape good.
2. Zainulabdin lodged such F. I. R. On 7July, 1980 at Police Station Garhi Yasin of District Shikarpur. The police after usual investigation challaned the applicants for the above offence.
3. The application bail was moved before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, who by his order dated 11August, 1980 dismissed it.
4. The learned counsel for the applicants 'contends that the incident is of a dark-night where identification is being claimed on light of a torch and a lantern, The names of the applicants do not appear in the F.I.R. As they were not known to the applicants previously and their descriptions have also not been mentioned in the F. I. R. They were arrested after 6 days of the incident when they have been put to identification test. The other piece of evidence against them is that of footprints' test. Moreover part of firing is attributed to the applicant Khan Mohammad at the time of his identification test. It is a case of mistaken identity and comes within scope of further inquiry as contemplated by section 497 (2), Cr. P. C.
5. The learned Addl. A-G. Opposes to grant of bail to applicant on the ground that they have been put to identification test on the very day when they were arrested and have been correctly picked out by the complainant as well as Rajab Ali. There is also evidence of footprints' test against them.th th I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants as well as State. The specific part of firing is assigned to the applicant Khan Mohammad only. I think the case of the applicants' Rustam and Manzoor is dis--tinguishable from that of the applicant Khan Mohammad. There is footprints test and identification on light of a torch and a lantern against them. The fact that their descriptions have also not been given in the F. I. R., coupled with a circumstance of their arrest after six days are sufficient factors which bring this case within scope of further inquiry as contemplated by section 497 (2), Cr. P. C. Therefore without gong into the merits of the case, I grant bail to the applicants Rustam and Manzoor only. They shall be released on furnishing their solvent sureties in the sum of Rs. 10,000 each and P. R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The application for bail of the applicant Khan Muhammad is however dismissed in the circumstances of the case.