' RIAZAT ALI SAHAR, J.---Applicant Muhammad Ramzan son of Sainyal has been involved in Crime No,27 of 2012 of Police Station, Sakhi Pir for offences punishable under section 395, P.P.C.
2. The allegations levelled against the applicant in the F.I.R. Are, that on 17-3-2012 at 0330 hours he along with co-accused persons entered into the house of complainant Muhammad Faisal and on the pointation of weapons they robbed golden ornaments, mobile phone along with cash. The applicant was implicated in the case on the basis of identification parade.
3. It is, inter alia, contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the name of applicant does not transpire in the F.I.R.; identification parade was held after four (4) days of the arrest of applicant and twenty seven (27) days; after the interrogation in jail; F.I.R. Is delayed by about seven
(7) days; applicant was arrested on 31-5-2012 and permission for conducting interrogation was allowed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 7-5-2012; case has been challaned on 8-6- 2012 and nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant, therefore, he is entitled for concession of bail. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the case of NAZIR AHMAD v. MUHAMMAD IQBAL (2011 SCM R 527).
4. Conversely, learned A.P.G. Recorded his objection that the applicant was rightly picked out by the P.W. During the course of identification parade, therefore, sufficient evidence is available against the present applicant and he is not entitled for concession of bail.
5. I have considered the respective submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.P.G.
And examined the record.
6. Admittedly, the name of present applicant does not transpire in the F.I.R.; no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant including robbed articles or crime weapon. As per record, the applicant was arrested on 31-5-2012, but the order dated 7-5-2012 passed by learned Incharge Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate-IX, Hyderabad reveals that on the request of Investigating Officer, he has been allowed to conduct interrogation and investigation during jail custody of the applicant. Since 6-5-2012 to 31-5-2012 nothing is available on the police record regarding any progress in the above crime including arrest of the applicant, which requires further inquiry. So far as identification parade is concerned, it was held on 4-6-2012 after four (4) days of his arrest and twenty four (24) days from the date of first interrogation. The law does not permit to the police to conduct any interrogation in the crime prior to arrest of the accused particularly in such type of criminal cases, if there is any substantial evidence against the accused first his arrest shall be made and subsequently he may be interrogated in any cognizable offence.
The investigation is also silent regarding the reasons for seeking permission from learned Magistrate in order to conduct the interrogation and investigation. The identification parade was held without applying due course of law, as 18 dummies were arranged for three (3) suspects and the same was held jointly. The case has been challaned, therefore, the applicant is no more required for further investigation to the police and his further detention in jail will not serve any purpose.
7. In view of the above circumstances, I am of the considered view that the applicant has succeeded to make out his case for grant of bail. Consequently, the bail is granted to the applicant, subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,200,000 (Rupees two hundred thousand) and PR bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of trial Court.
8. The observations made herein above are tentative in nature and will not prejudice the case of either party at the time of trial.