1. ' FAROOQ ALI CHANNA , J.---Applicants Muhammad Rehan and Irshad Ahmed have filed above mentioned two bail applications for their release on bail in F.I.R. No, 568/2013, Police Station Surjani Town, under sections 392, 397, 34 P.P.C. Lodged by complainant Bilal Hashmi that on 12-10-2013 at 3-00 p.m. Two unknown persons entered his house and on gun point robbed his gold ornaments, cash Rs,15,000, shaving- machine and three mobile phones China made Nokia company and ran away after locking them in the room of the house. After sometime his brother Ibrahim came there, freed them and informed that he has seen their neighbour Rehan 'standing outside the house.
2. ' During investigation, the Investigator arrested both the aforesaid applicants, on the pointation of applicant Irshad Ahmed recovered some robbed articles, after completing investigation the 1.0.
3. Submitted challan.
4. ' The bail applications moved by the applicants before the trial Court were dismissed.
5. ' Learned counsel for the applicants have contended that the case is false and fabricated, both the applicants are innocent, the complainant has also sworn affidavit exonerating both the applicants.
6. On merits learned counsel have contended that no identification test of the applicants was held nor the property allegedly recovered on the pointation of applicant Irshad Ahmed was shown as robbed property in F.I.R., as such prima facie the applicants are entitled to be released on bail.
7. ' Learned D.P.G. Has vehemently opposed the grant of bail and has contended that applicant Rehan is nominated in F.I.R., P.W. Ibrahim who came to the place of incident soon after the wardat had seen the applicant Rehan standing outside the house, the P.Ws. Also identified both the applicants at Police Station, the robbed property was recovered on the pointation of Irshad Ahmed, which is sufficient evidence to connect the applicants in commission of this offence against society. The applicants have alleged no enmity against the complainant or the P.Ws. Compelling them to give false statement against the applicants, as such no case of bail is made out, she emphasized that bail application may be dismissed.
8. I have considered the arguments and perused the record. The sole allegation against the applicant Rehan is that he was seen standing outside the house. Per Prosecution neither he had entered the house of complainant nor was robbed property recovered from his possession or on his pointation. As far the case against Irshad Ahmed is concerned, he was not named in F.I.R. Nor he was known to the prosecution witnesses prior to the incident, in these circumstances it was obligatory to put the applicant on identification test through Prosecution witnesses, the Investigating Officer has failed to discharge his above obligatory responsibility. Per Prosecution, the investigating officer on the pointation of applicant Irshad Ahmed recovered laptop, mobile phone of LG company and shaving machine, such property except shaving machine was not shown in F.I.R. To have been robbed of even mere recovery of some robbed property would not amount to offence of robbery, such offence would fall under section 411 P.P.C.punishable to the extent of three years, it does not fall within the ambit of prollibition clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. Accordingly I grant the bail to both the applicants subject to their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs, 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.