' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,310, dated 3-12-2012, under section 394, P.P.C., (sections 396, 302, 412 P.P.C. Added during investigation), registered at Police Station Khushab, District Khushab.
2. Precisely the prosecution case as narrated by Muhammad Hassan Younas (complainant) is that he along with Muhammad Tariq Nawaz, Manager Zafar Sultan and Sohaib was present at the office of Total Petrol Pump at about 1.00 p.m. On 3-12-2012; in the meanwhile he sent manager Zafar Sultan and Sohaib with two bags full of cash, Rs,75,36,000 on a motorcycle for depositing it in Muslim Commercial Bank, Khushab; he along with Muhammad Tariq Nawaz as a matter of caution also followed them by a motorcycle; they had hardly covered a distance of 50 yards when a car, bearing registration No,396/LXZ Honda-City intercepted the, motorcycle of Zafar Sultan and Sohaib wherefrom a bulky-figure wheat-like colour, armed with a pistol, stepped down and fired at Zafar Sultan which went missing; in the meantime a lanky person, smart body, clad in cream colour clothes armed with firearm, fired through front gate of the car which landed at left side of manager Zafar Sultan who fell onto the ground in injured condition; the accused picked up the cash-bags and fled the spot on the said car, which was driven .By a young man of wheat-like colour; he (complainant) asserted that he along with his companions could identify the accused, if they saw them again; Zafar Sultan injured was shifted to hospital Joharabad in a precarious condition.
3. Zafar Sultan succumbed to the injuries on 11-12-2012 which led to insertion of sections 302, 396 P.P.C., in place of section 394 P. P. C .
4. The accused-petitioner was taken into custody as a suspect under section 54 Cr.P.C. On 3-2- 2013 and sent to District Jail Shahpur forthwith for the purpose of test identification. The record reveals that the test identification parade was staged on 9-2-2013 during the course of which two witnesses Muhammad Akbar and Sakhawat correctly picked him up with the contention that he was aboard another car, wherein he along with his co-accused kept themselves posted as guards to facilitate their co-accused and they were empty handed. The petitioner was formally arrested in this case on 19-2-2013 where after he led to the recovery of cash Rs,20 lacs on 25-2-2013.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is neither named in the F.I.R. Nor he, according to the prosecution case took part in the occurrence of dacoity in any manner; the evidence of test identification parade is of no consequence against the petitioner as both the identifiers, Muhammad Akbar and Sakhawat are not cited witnesses of the F.I.R.; the evidence of recovery of cash Rs,20 lacs at the instance of the petitioner has been manoeuvred by the prosecution only to strengthen their false case; the complainant Muhammad Has' san Yunus, Muhammad Tariq Nawaz and Sohaib (victim) are named in the F.I.R. As eye-witnesses of the occurrence but none of them participated in the test identification which adversely reflects on the veracity of said evidence; lastly submits that the petitioner's case calls for further probe into his guilt within the meaning of section 497(2) Cr.P.C.
6.. On the other hand, learned District Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes with the contention that the petitioner in fact stood guard to facilitate his co-accused who intercepted the motorcycle of the deceased and snatched from him the money- filledbags at gun point, besides committing his ruthless murder; the witnesses of identification have categorically stated under section 161 Cr.P.C. That the accused-petitioner along with his five co-accused was seated in another car at the time of occurrence as on-watchers of the incident, committed by their co-accused; the evidence of test identification coupled with recovery of cash Rs,20 lacs is a strong corroboratory circumstance against the petitioner who is vicariously liable for the entire occurrence; lastly submits that the offence committed by the petitioner is heinous and falls within the mischief of prohibition of section 497(1) Cr.P.C.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the complainant-Muhammad Hassan Younas, Muhammad Tariq Nawaz and one of the alleged victims, Sohaib categorically asserted in their statements that they had witnessed the occurrence being present at the spot at the crucial hour and they could identify the accused, if they would ever see them again. One of them, Sohaib is the most important person, as he was the co-rider of manager Zafar Sultan, when their motorcycle was intercepted by a car bearing registration No,396-LXZ Honda-City, wherefrom two persons fired at them and one of the fire shots made from front seat of the car, hit manager Zafar Sultan, due to which they both, manager Zafar Sultan and Sohaib, fell-off their motorcycle and fire-shooters took away the cash filled bags. Test identification parade was held on 9-2-2013 for identification of accused SS/ed Shahzad Hussain Sherazi (petitioner) and his co-accused Mumtaz, wherein, surprisingly, none of the above-named witnesses took part and they kept themselves away from the said lawful exercise for the reasons, only known to the prosecution and not disclosed by them during the course of investigation. The witnesses, Muhammad Akbar and Sakhawat participated in joint test identification and correctly picked up the accused-petitioner and Mumtaz accused, but their B. Statements, recorded by the supervising magistrate leave a blurred impression as to involvement of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence as they contended that they had seen the accused-petitioner stepping down from a Honda-City car, being empty handed and he did nothing except for boarding the said car again and in the meanwhile they also heard report of a fire shot. Both the identifiers are not 'named in the F.I.R. As witnesses, rather they were introduced in this case later on, but on the very first day. Their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. Reveal that the occurrence was committed by some unknown accused, boarded in two cars and they claimed that they could identify three of the six occupants of a Honda-City car, external features of whom they mentioned in their statements. It appears from the record that the occurrence of dacoity itself was committed by the riders of another vehicle, again a Honda-City car. Non-joining of test identification by Muhammad Hassan Yunus complainant, Muhammad Tariq Nawaz and alleged victim Sohaib causes eyebrow-raising and leaves one guessing about the aforesaid strategy of the prosecution. During arguments learned counsel for the complainant, on query of this court, advanced a novel argument that the other car wherefrom the petitioner and his co-accused stepped down, was parked at a distance of about one and a half (1-1/2) furlong from the venue of the occurrence and for this reason, the complainant and his co-witnesses could not see him (petitioner) at the spot. If it is so, how a nexus shall be established between above said two Honda-City cars, one allegedly used by those, who virtually, as per contents of F.I.R., committed the crime and the other one used by their alleged facilitators including the petitioner? This question requires a serious consideration, which can probably, be answered by the prosecution only during the course of the trial. So far as recovery of cash rupees two millions at the instance of the accused-petitioner is concerned, though it appears to be a huge amount, allegedly got recovered by the petitioner, yet, it cannot be altogether ruled out while keeping in view aforesaid strategy and anxiety of the prosecution to involve the petitioner in this case, that the recovery memo prepared by the Investigating Officer in this regard may not be as transparent and unblemished as it has been shown by them (prosecution) to be. Whether or not the currency notes allegedly got recovered by the petitioner bore any distinguishing marks still remains a riddle. The evidentiary value of this particular piece of evidence, however, shall be determined by the trial court after recording evidence of the parties at trial. There exist reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner's case constitutes need for further inquiry into his guilt as envisaged by section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
8. Therefore, this application is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfactiOn of the learned trial Court.